Richards

I can't find any reports of a riot. Civil disobedience and riots are two very different things. In the second case there was no riot. In the first case they surrounded the car and intimidated the immigration officials into turning around. In the second case their mere presence was intimidation enough given the first attempt to deport Most of the people there were likely citizens. You should know that born citizens and naturalized ones are equal in Canada; they can't be deported. For those non-citizens who were there, if there was in fact a riot, yes they should face an immigration hearing. What I saw on the video was a peaceful demonstration much like the kind you see on the streets of Vancouver every day for a ridiculous array of causes, and much more lawful and peaceful than your average labour picket; shit they weren't even blocking traffic. That said it pisses me off that religious types think they can use their delusion centre as a sanctuary from the law. The Jesus people did the same thing in the hoity toity side of Van for a couple of months a few years back. You can bet your bottom dollar the cops didn't break down the doors of St. Andrew's I know people will accuse me of all kinds of things (redneck, racist, inolerant....yadda yadda yadda...etc.) for this but any country should have the right to deport anyone not born there if the circumstances merit it. A country should be able to put it's well being ahead of individual agendas. There is absolutely no reason why those protestors who physically blocked the first deportation order should not be deported themselves if they were not born here. The threat of deportation prevents filth from bringing their filth tendencies with them. It protects Canada. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Not as much as up here My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Agreed. Any of those who participated in the riots should be charged for it and deported if they were not born here. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

More than a thousand people turn out on the streets in his defence and yet he doesn't have adequate community ties? SHowing up to protest does not mean that they have ties with him. It is a power play. At the end of the day he came here illegally, broke our laws, milked the system indefinitely to prevent being deported, sought refuge in a church and now apparently his stroke has rendered him quadriplegic. Misfirtune should be an excuse to keep ill gotten gains (including residency). He is the architect of his own misfortune and should be sent home. My primary beef with this is not that his community protested his deportation but that they rioted and used thuggery and intimidation to physicall prevent our officials from carrying out the lawful deportation order. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Yes we do but there is no way our government would dare risk the political backlash that would arise from using them. I think the next time they go to serve the deportation order they should have multiple police including riot control cops. THey should have the riot control guys there and have a small detachment of them escort the immigration officials through the mob and then Mr. Singh back out through the mob and to the airport with the police and riot cops escorting the entire way. THe riot cops should have all resources neccessary (sheilds, batons, pepper spray, water hoses, rubber bullets, tazers...etc) on hand to deal with any escalation as needed and they should execute this deportation order for once and for all. We need to spell it out for some people that our laws do not bend to thuggery and intimidation. Members of special interest groups can not be allowed to dictate to the Canadian government who stays and who goes. The courts must decide that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/09/singh-deportation.html Again force and thuggery prevented the law from being enforced. This guy needs to go, and the idiots physically preventing his deportation should be criminally charged. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Certainly if they have been declawed. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Sounds like he was a weirdo. I seem to be a magnet for them. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

If someone has a question that pertains to the circumstances (asking about a good wine while in a wine store) I am usually OK, I just get uncomfortable when strangers spark up freindly conversations without reason unless of course I happen to be sitting next to them in a pub or something like that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Why not at least a quick rinse down in the shower? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Are they endangered? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Sorry to hear that. Iv'e never had that much trouble with US Customs My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Up there especially this time of year I would think they would be the Hell's Frozen Over Angels. They seem to be a favourite for the police up here. An anti-gang law as created for the sole purpose of going after them, and they have been targetted relentlessly by the cops up here so they seem to be going through difficult times. What I can't seem to understand is why the cops aren't also using these anti-gang laws to go after some of these street gangs in Toronto. The laws seem to be pretty effective when used against a gang soit would only make sense for them to apply them to the other gangs here, but for some reason they have yet to do so. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Which citizen of new Jersey is apologising and how many slaves did he own? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

My point exactly. At what point do we no longer have reasonable doubt? Again we could just avoid all the hassle by making it a felony to meet any minor you have spoken to online for any reason however innocent unles you have already spoken to the parents and they are aware that you are meeting their child (in which case they will be mightily curious and show up to see your intentions). My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Precisely. In most of these cases the reasonable doubt is as probable as elvis being alive and having conspired with space aliens to kill JFK. It is remotely possible. As for killing someone who showed up on my door to bang my minor daughter I probably would not do it. Unles I actually caught him in the act of molesting her he would make it to jail in reasonable good health so long as he did not resist while I detained him. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Whenever I went on a date there certainly was intent (or at least faint hope) to have sex, as I suspect is the case with the majority of the male species. Only I went with women in my own age group. But the man showing up on the scene has been told online that she is a minor. Thus he intends to meet with the minor. In the cases I saw he had described sexual acts online. Let's not put words in my mouth now Details? Did the online guy describe a car that matched that car? Did he give a plate number? Did he specifiy that location? For example if a guy has been talking to a girl who has identified herself as a minor, describes sexual acts he will commit with her and then says; " Meet me in the parking lot behind the 7-11 and I will be in a red mustang, plate number 123-456.....uh your not a cop are you? I sure could get into a lot of trouble for this"; and then surprise surprise a red mustang plate number 123-456 shows up in exactly that location in the agreed upon time (after circling the block 7 or 8 times) I can sleep well at night after putting that guy in the clink. Was it that scenario (I saw one like that) or was it a random guy parking in a parking lot in the area and then just on a hunch they figured he must be the guy, or perhaps grabed a random car driver going by? Was it something in between the two extremes I have described? THinking about murder is not illegal either. Saying to an undercover cop that you will accept money to kill someone and then showing up at the alledged targets house with a gun does not meen that you were going to commit a crime either? You may have just been talking shit to the cop and decided to drop by the targets house to "talk" and happened to bring a peice. It some point we should not have to wait for a crime to happen before we can bust. I realize we do need safeguards against unjust convictions but in my humble opinion the characters busted in the shows I watched were guilty. I am not sure which shows you watched. Uhmmm.......no, actually it doesn't. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Whenever I watched the show the ones that showed up were identified in advance by thier IP address (or something similar). It was pretty cut and dried. If on other episodes, individuals who had nothing to do with the chat showed up I have not seen those episodes so I will have to take your word on it. THe ones I saw were pretty clean busts which left little doubt. As for someone going to warn the parents and getting busted as the perv I have never heard of it. Is this an actual incident or a hypothetical? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

It would depend on the case. A short incarceration, if the preson can get his/her job back then lost wages and some other minor things should be covered in a lump sum payment. If you have taking the persons best formative years (in terms of career development) then obviously the payout should be more. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So am I. But how do you arrest someone for a crime that never happened? People say all sorts of shit online. dropzone.com proves that everyday. We don't arrest them, do we? Hard call then. If planning the sex online and then showing up at the "minors" house is not enough then what is the line that needs to be crossed before we arrest? Do you see my concern? How can we posibly be proactive in catching these guys unless we are willing to lure them in and arrest them at the door? If we are going to lure them over the internet then what line do we have to allow them to cross before we arrest them? SHould we simply wait untill a kids mom calls and complains that her daughter had sex with a 40 year old? Even if we catch the two of them alone in a hotel room, unless there is sexual intercourse occuring then he can argue that despite a slew of dirty intenet chats and plans for sexual intercourse they were just in the hotel room with wine, flowers (and him with a pack of condoms) just to talk. What about soliciting to commit murder? Again we are talking about a crime that has not yet happened. At some point we have to be willing to say that with a reasonable degree of certainty the person had already engaged in criminal activity. As for the idea that people say all kinds of shit online, even on DZ I have to disagree. I have never witnessed any member here soliciting sex from someone who identifies himself/herself as a minor. Talking shit or being un-PC is a far cry from planning a sexual encounter with a minor over the net and then showing up at the minors house with the apparent intention of talking. I don't mean any disrespect but we are going to have to disagree here. I am quite satisfied that the guys showing up at the door on that show deserve to be arrested. I know some here will acuse me of being a "hang-em-high" hardliner for that but there have to be provisions in place to protect children from these guys. The only other solution I can suggest is that we make it illegal for any adult to meet with any person identified as a minor over the internet regardless of the intentions unles they arrange first to meet the parents. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

And the "actual work" they are doing is like setting up stupid entrapments in parks. Is that the norm or one isolated incedent? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That's kind of what I suspected, hence the hangover remark. No problem with them coming here but some screening to weed out the garbage wouldn't hurt. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No it's true. That is why I resorted to using the cruise control and staying in the right lane. The few times I got speeding tickets I really just wasn't paying attention. I didn't try to use that as an excuse at the tme though. I just accepted the ticket and started using cruise control. Lack of paying attention is a big problem of mine. As a matter of fact I had to authorize Visa to just deduct my monthly payment from my account because I used to forget sometimes (even though I had the money to pay) and I was worried about hurting my credit rating . I don't mind speed enforcement so long as it is not abused. The advantage of photo radar is that it free's cops up to do actual cop work, but again it is subject to abuse. Sounds like you have some cops with small dick syndrome. Sorry to put it that way. Most of teh cops I have dealt with here are human. For example I often hear the saying that "ignorance of the law is not an excuse". Up here that seems to be used more for the bad guy that is just playing dumb. Most cops I have dealt with use their judgement and if it appears to them that you were genuinely ignorant they tried to give people the benefit of the doubt (within reason). I gues that is where we will have to disagree. Do you honestly beleive that a man who talks to someone who identifies themselves as a minor, discusses sex and even in some cases expresses concern about the cops, and finally describes certain acts he would like to perfrom is actually showing up at the "minors" house just to talk? I am somewhat sceptical. It reminds me of the story where they said that most men busted for child pornography claimed it was accidentally downloaded even though they had a kazillion gigabites of it stored on their computer. Some excuses stretch the boundaries of reason. I am comfortable that the men who showed up at the door on "to catch a predator" were genuine predators and were not entrapped. I am greatfull that they were exposed and prosecuted. I would have to know more before I could comment. If someone is on the net haveing sex talk with people he beleives to be minors then he is up to no good. I guess I would have to know more about the law with regard to soliciting sex from minors. I would expect that would be illegal (or at least should be). My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Are the Irish still acting up? I thought they had a hangover. I say that the IRA should be treated no differently thatn any other terror group. As for the people of Northern Ireland well I guess it would depend. If the people in northern Ireland rabidly support the IRA and they burn british flags ad-nauseum, burn efigies, scream death to britain, death to america and all kinds of other crap and celebrate in the streets when innocent brits are killed in terror acts I would prefer they stayed in northern ireland rather than immigrating here and bringing their shit with them. If however the IRA weer highly unpopular with the majority of the people there and represented an unwanted group who could garner little support then let open the doors to the people of northern ireland. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I did not mean to imply that it is that black and white. Perhaps it is my delivery. In my post with nerdgirl I discussed how I tend to look at "scumbags" as people who make a conscious choice to do something that they know is bad, not someone who makes a dumb error. For examle I have been caught speeding when I was not paying attention to the limit. I also used to rent movies at the video store and record them (for personal library not distribution) which of course was wrong and I do not do anymore so I can not present myself as someone who is squeaky clean. I guess the dividing line for me is intentions. Some good people do things that are wrong and I realise there is probably a good reason for the "entrapment" law. I guess it just bugs me that in common language it is far too often used for what appears to be a straight forward arrest/sting. I cannot deny that the original idea behind entrapment laws was good and there may still be reason. It just seems to get used far too frequently . Again most of the examples I have cited in previous posts the "entrapment" argument was made. As a matter of fact on this forum I recall a big debate about how that show "to catch a predator" constituted entrapment which to me did not add up. I have only thus far heard hypothetical scenarios for entrapment which sounded legitimate and of course the situation decribed by the OP. In most real cases where I have actually heard people cry entrapment I felt it was a fair bust. Obviously the scenario you have described would require the cop to be a bit of a jerk. Part of it again may be different experiences in our respective countries. Cops up here generaly do not ask a guy who they see with a bit of weed to sell them a gram so they can bust him. Most of the ones here (outside of quebec) seem to be reasonable. My experience (and that of my freinds) is that our cops generally are not trying to get anyone they can and seem to act like humans. They do tend to put their energies toward revenue (traffic enforcement)m and real crime. THe average Joe could smoke a joint in plain view and the cops will not bug him. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.