Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skip
I must respectfully disagree with your position.
I don't think he missed the point at all, as I feel the point never was about the life jacket.
The only issue before the court was the legality of the stop ( if it was a stop at all).
I do not agree with the decision the majority of the court came to ( I tend to side with the minority, Justice Broderick, who felt it was not the intention of the MP to conduct a stop). But I do agree that not having a life preserver in this case was just plain stupid.
The individual in question felt he was not treated fairly. He didn't post an anonymous gripe to the Winni web site complaining about the MP's. He didn't write a letter to the editor. He didn't sit home and stew about his situation.
Nope, the gentleman in question simply excercised his constitutional rights to a fair trial and appeal process. And in the end a sole citizen was able, by himself, to prevail against the Government position.
That's the magnificent beauty of our system.
And if that is a waste of time, then one can only wish more citizens had that kind of time to waste!  |
I agree with both your posts re: how well the "system" worked in this case. It's refreshing to hear that a non attorney can still argue a minor point before a court these days, rather than just be told to pay (sorry sir, the court's too busy to deal with your injustice) the fine w/o any recourse.
I disagree in that I (also not an attorney) would consider the MP's action to be a "stop". Consider that the officer went to the group (if you believe the news article) to conduct PFD "checks". He initiated contact with the defendant and basically asked if he had a PFD. If you don't consider this a "stop", hold the defendant responsible to respond (or at least stay put), you're saying he could just ignore the MP and/or just paddle away. Would you consider this behavior acceptable ? Moreover were I in the defendant's position I would wonder if doing the above would make me likely to face a charge of failing to obey a lawful order or evasion of some sort. If the MP, or some other LEO, intiates some contact with me, I guess I've always thought I was legally obligated to stay put. I might not have to open my mouth but I do have to stay put. If I were to agree with the minority ruling, I could "run". How would I know when I could "run" and when I can't ... blue lights on perhaps ? No I think it's reasonable to consider it a "stop", requiring you & I to stop. I agree with the majority ruling.