St. Patrick's celebrations

[ijmorlan]

Good question. Unless this really is just for show they would have to involve WRPS. Arresting and fining people for not carrying ID would not be a good look for Waterloo.

There is a fundamental difference between penalizing people for not carrying ID and penalizing people for not providing identification for the purpose of issuing them a ticket. The first is wrong in a free and democratic society; the second is mandatory for tickets to actually mean anything, especially to the worst scofflaws (I mean, realistically I’m not going to misidentify myself; but some guy who has figured out that if he does so he can violate the noise or dog poop bylaw as much as he wants sure will).

[jeffster]

How many times can you do works on a given road? They can get away with it once, I imagine, but after that you'll need another excuse.

I'd imagine once or twice is all you'd need to kill the event.

For sure you could co-ordinate with Bell or Rogers in other years for upgrades, same with Waterloo-North Hydro for the second year.

Well, Bell was working on our street, it was a real mess getting around, and noisy too, as they were upgraded to fibre.

That said -- and experience working with government, it's not uncommon to have road work one year, then the following year digging it all up for sewer/water works. It shouldn't be that way, and for sure, not intentionally, but it does happen.

[Bob_McBob]

There is a fundamental difference between penalizing people for not carrying ID and penalizing people for not providing identification for the purpose of issuing them a ticket. The first is wrong in a free and democratic society; the second is mandatory for tickets to actually mean anything, especially to the worst scofflaws (I mean, realistically I’m not going to misidentify myself; but some guy who has figured out that if he does so he can violate the noise or dog poop bylaw as much as he wants sure will).

The bylaw amendment effectively allows the city to penalize people for not carrying ID in situations where they are not legally obligated to do so. In most cases you do not have to provide anything more than your name and date of birth to a municipal enforcement officer. Fining people for not producing an identity document for a bylaw infraction is not ok and may even breach Charter rights.

[ijmorlan]

There is a fundamental difference between penalizing people for not carrying ID and penalizing people for not providing identification for the purpose of issuing them a ticket. The first is wrong in a free and democratic society; the second is mandatory for tickets to actually mean anything, especially to the worst scofflaws (I mean, realistically I’m not going to misidentify myself; but some guy who has figured out that if he does so he can violate the noise or dog poop bylaw as much as he wants sure will).

The bylaw amendment effectively allows the city to penalize people for not carrying ID in situations where they are not legally obligated to do so. In most cases you do not have to provide anything more than your name and date of birth to a municipal enforcement officer. Fining people for not producing an identity document for a bylaw infraction is not ok and may even breach Charter rights.

I’m not a lawyer. It may well be that the Charter has been poorly written and/or interpreted such that bylaw is effectively toothless, although I do not know.

I’m just pointing out that it is crazy if somebody who is being ticketed for an offence cannot be forced to make a choice between identifying themselves or being arrested. Imagine it’s your house that is unliveable because of somebody blasting music just outside the window (or committing some other bylaw infraction). Are you really OK with the perpetrator giving a false name, then coming back the next day secure in the knowledge that the name they gave was bogus?

Just because it’s in the Charter doesn’t necessarily mean it makes sense.

[Chris]

How many times can you do works on a given road? They can get away with it once, I imagine, but after that you'll need another excuse.

I'm pretty sure that they are looking for gold in the Erb, Bridgeport, Regina, King area. I think they have dug that up every year since the 70's.

[Coke6pk]

You are not required to provide identification for a by-law offence, but you are required to identify yourself.  In my previous life, I charged many who used verbal ID.  If the name/information was false, that's a criminal matter, and police would arrest and hold for proper identification. 


While thee may be a desire to give a false name, there are many ways to determine that, and if so, you ave a bigger issue than the by-law ticket.

Coke

Maybe I misunderstand what happens when one is ticketed for an offence. How (without revealing any trade secrets, obviously!) would you go about establishing the true identity of somebody you were attempting to ticket for drinking on a public sidewalk, for example? If they confidently give a name, what would even cause you to suspect it to be an alias? And once the interaction has ended, all you have is a piece of paper with a bogus name on it — I’m not aware of anything that could be used later to tie it to the person, even if the same person commits another offence. It’s not even like going on the 407 with a false plate where one can imagine matching up the video image with other video images and with ownership records to eventually figure out whose car is in the photo. I mean, you don’t photograph people to whom you are giving tickets?

No, but through the use of good questions, questions that are the same but phrased differently can weed out most who are providing a false name.  

There have also been issues of legitimate people being summoned to court for an offence they didn't commit, that provide information that friend/family member used their name.  

And of course, there are tickets that are voided because the named person doesn't exist.  I'm not going to lie, I once issued a ticket to James T Kirk of 100 Enterprise Dr, Cambridge.  I didn't catch on until after I left the bar, and when I returned he was gone... chalk one up for the bad guys LOL

Coke

[danbrotherston]

Good question. Unless this really is just for show they would have to involve WRPS. Arresting and fining people for not carrying ID would not be a good look for Waterloo.

There is a fundamental difference between penalizing people for not carrying ID and penalizing people for not providing identification for the purpose of issuing them a ticket. The first is wrong in a free and democratic society; the second is mandatory for tickets to actually mean anything, especially to the worst scofflaws (I mean, realistically I’m not going to misidentify myself; but some guy who has figured out that if he does so he can violate the noise or dog poop bylaw as much as he wants sure will).

But the problem is, if you don't require someone to carry ID, unless they are accused of breaking the law, then you by definition require everyone to carry ID.  It's like the "resisting arrest" charge...if that's the ONLY charge, then what were you resisting?  If you don't carry ID, and some police officer decides to ticket you, even if you're innocent, you're now guilty.

[danbrotherston]

The bylaw amendment effectively allows the city to penalize people for not carrying ID in situations where they are not legally obligated to do so. In most cases you do not have to provide anything more than your name and date of birth to a municipal enforcement officer. Fining people for not producing an identity document for a bylaw infraction is not ok and may even breach Charter rights.

I’m not a lawyer. It may well be that the Charter has been poorly written and/or interpreted such that bylaw is effectively toothless, although I do not know.

I’m just pointing out that it is crazy if somebody who is being ticketed for an offence cannot be forced to make a choice between identifying themselves or being arrested. Imagine it’s your house that is unliveable because of somebody blasting music just outside the window (or committing some other bylaw infraction). Are you really OK with the perpetrator giving a false name, then coming back the next day secure in the knowledge that the name they gave was bogus?

Just because it’s in the Charter doesn’t necessarily mean it makes sense.

I am okay with this on account of, I understand that the alternative is not desirable.

At the end of the day, it's a bylaw infraction, the police do have an option in the case of a serious crime, which is to detain the person, until they can ensure appearance in court.

[jeffster]

I’m not a lawyer. It may well be that the Charter has been poorly written and/or interpreted such that bylaw is effectively toothless, although I do not know.

I’m just pointing out that it is crazy if somebody who is being ticketed for an offence cannot be forced to make a choice between identifying themselves or being arrested. Imagine it’s your house that is unliveable because of somebody blasting music just outside the window (or committing some other bylaw infraction). Are you really OK with the perpetrator giving a false name, then coming back the next day secure in the knowledge that the name they gave was bogus?

Just because it’s in the Charter doesn’t necessarily mean it makes sense.

I am okay with this on account of, I understand that the alternative is not desirable.

At the end of the day, it's a bylaw infraction, the police do have an option in the case of a serious crime, which is to detain the person, until they can ensure appearance in court.

I really think the police, and our court, have much better things to do than deal with the kids on Ezra and whatever by-law infractions are given to them.

And for those that do go to court to fight the charge, they'll successfully do so by stating the obvious: everyone was doing it. It's not a "why me" scenario, but rather point out that they were simply going with the "flow of traffic" -- which then makes the charge unreasonable.

It seems to me that Waterloo is more interested in making some coin rather than actually dealing with the issue. Ticket as many offenders as possible, hoping that 50% of them were honest with their details, free cash for city coffers.

[ijmorlan]

There is a fundamental difference between penalizing people for not carrying ID and penalizing people for not providing identification for the purpose of issuing them a ticket. The first is wrong in a free and democratic society; the second is mandatory for tickets to actually mean anything, especially to the worst scofflaws (I mean, realistically I’m not going to misidentify myself; but some guy who has figured out that if he does so he can violate the noise or dog poop bylaw as much as he wants sure will).

But the problem is, if you don't require someone to carry ID, unless they are accused of breaking the law, then you by definition require everyone to carry ID.  It's like the "resisting arrest" charge...if that's the ONLY charge, then what were you resisting?  If you don't carry ID, and some police officer decides to ticket you, even if you're innocent, you're now guilty.

Well the problem right now is that the more “minor” offences effectively don’t exist, at least not for the worst offenders.

I repeat my question about the guy blasting music into your house.

They might have to go home (presumably with an officer) and get their ID. Everybody has ID. I’d be satisfied with it being OK for a friend who does have ID to vouch for the person’s identity. I’d also be OK with an alternative being to take a high-quality photograph of the person being ticketed. Over time, attempted repeat offenders would build up a dossier of photographs that could be matched up and used to prosecute them for all their offences.

I do agree that this needs to be combined with better accountability for officers of all stripes. Officers who regularly issue bogus citations should lose their jobs (and, obviously, issuing a bogus citation just to ID someone would count). Actually a lot of existing officers should lose their jobs. I would go so far as to say that when the courts throw out evidence because of misbehaviour by the police, it should trigger an investigation which may, if appropriate, fire and possibly blacklist the offending officers. Partly, this should be management changes within law enforcement, and partly external investigation and supervision of law enforcement. I regularly hear of law enforcement behaviour that makes me think that the officer involved has no business being in law enforcement. Although the most recent time I heard of it, I think it may have been the officer who arrested a nurse for not performing an illegal blood draw, the news soon came out that the officer had indeed been fired. So under some circumstances there is accountability, just not often enough.

So I do have an appreciation for the issues. I think a lot of people who are concerned about law enforcement misbehaviour haven’t thought through what they are really saying, if what they say is fully implemented. This came up in Toronto, where I understand some were characterizing a proposed increase in transit enforcement officers as racist. This of course is absurd; while there probably is work to be done in improving the training and behaviour of the transit officers, the only way that hiring more officers can be inherently bad for, say, Black people, is if Black people actually do commit more fare violations. So characterizing an increase in officers, in itself, as racist, is what is actually racist, because one is saying that it’s simply unavoidable that more enforcement will involve more Black people in the justice system. By contrast, demanding that some of the budget increase go to better training, with a focus on eliminating racism, is perfectly reasonable.

Didn’t really mean to change the subject to Toronto transit enforcement. Going back to what you wrote, I also agree that resisting arrest, by itself, is problematic. It should be an absolute requirement to put down that charge that there be a lawful arrest asserted, including why the arrest was attempted. There should be no such thing as being arrested for resisting arrest but rather it should be something that can be added to a legitimate arrest if appropriate.

[ijmorlan]

It seems to me that Waterloo is more interested in making some coin rather than actually dealing with the issue. Ticket as many offenders as possible, hoping that 50% of them were honest with their details, free cash for city coffers.

I’m not entirely sure the economics of that idea work out. How many tickets would they have to issue to cover the cost of the operation?

[Coke6pk]

And for those that do go to court to fight the charge, they'll successfully do so by stating the obvious: everyone was doing it. It's not a "why me" scenario, but rather point out that they were simply going with the "flow of traffic" -- which then makes the charge unreasonable.

I'd love to know in which courthouse the "flow of traffic" makes a charge unreasonable?

Everyone else was speeding has never been an acceptable defence.  You ticket what you can, and hope the visibility of the enforcement educates the others.  If not, you get them next time.

By using your logic, there would never be a sucessful charge of riotting, organized crime or gang rape.

Coke

[jeffster]

It seems to me that Waterloo is more interested in making some coin rather than actually dealing with the issue. Ticket as many offenders as possible, hoping that 50% of them were honest with their details, free cash for city coffers.

I’m not entirely sure the economics of that idea work out. How many tickets would they have to issue to cover the cost of the operation?

Depends on how much they intend on fining people. Say $250 for whatever they feel they can do is 'reasonable' and enough of a deterrent in 2021, multiply that by 1,500 (7% of the attendee's) is $375,000 minus enforcement cost (and assume 50% actually pay) so perhaps around $175,000 for coffers. I'd still bank though that many would take that risk as rather small, especially if they intend on fighting it. I mean, if I was a 19 or 20 year old, and perhaps came from a modest enough income, $250 is a small risk to have an awesome time with a lot of peers of my age. A pub crawl will cost almost as much. But I don't think Waterloo has calculated the cost associated with potentially many, if not most, of the party goers fighting the charges, plus any that gave false information and the consequences of that -- especially if they do link it to your drivers license.

[jeffster]

And for those that do go to court to fight the charge, they'll successfully do so by stating the obvious: everyone was doing it. It's not a "why me" scenario, but rather point out that they were simply going with the "flow of traffic" -- which then makes the charge unreasonable.

I'd love to know in which courthouse the "flow of traffic" makes a charge unreasonable?

Everyone else was speeding has never been an acceptable defence.  You ticket what you can, and hope the visibility of the enforcement educates the others.  If not, you get them next time.

By using your logic, there would never be a sucessful charge of riotting, organized crime or gang rape.

Coke

The "flow of traffic" I was referring to that obviously that everyone does between 110 and 120 on the 401, for example, and police simply don't enforce it, despite literally everyone breaking the law. However, if you had an officer pull you over at 115 over on the 401, your defence that *everyone* was going that fast or faster would be solid - even without a lawyer you'd win. I bring up the 'unreasonable' charge as I did have an officer pull me over for something, which the court said I was absolutely guilty of, but the court also found the officer to be 100% completely unreasonable in charging me. This was interesting too because usually the charging officer doesn't show up in court to back up his charge, be this guy did. Whatever the case, the charges were dropped by the judge.

That said, if you were going 130 on the 401 and got nailed, the excuse 'going with the flow' would be categorically incorrect, we know that, the police know that, and the judge knows that.

The same would apply to this event. Literally everyone is breaking the law, the law had never been enforced before, so it would be very difficult have any charge stick.

As for your 3 examples: Rioting -- I've seen riots before, and one thing you will see, 95% of the people are not breaking the law, while 5% are. Of that 5%, a very small amount of people are caught, but charges are sometimes successful because police would have ample proof that the amount of people involved in violence, looting, or vandalism was small in comparison to everyone there (the observers).

Organized crime -- I had family involved in that, and they didn't go to jail. Organized crime is super successful because those involved in it have the proper connection in police and judges and politicians that they can get away with a lot of stuff. This is why we still have organized crime. Cops get rich, so they lose the perps all the time. Quebec is a perfect example how high quality organized crime can actually run local, provincial and federal governments. You don't see any PM, MP, Premier or MPP from Quebec going to jail, ever.

As for gang rape, I have no idea how that applies to anything here. Before I say too much more, in what context are you using gang rape and how it relates to a 'everyone else was doing it' attitude? Closest thing I can think about is what goes on with football teams and generally, yeah, they do get away with rape because the parents and school can afford good lawyers to put enough blame on the victim or privilege to have the charges reduced to probation.

That said, as with speeding on the 401, zero enforcement for these petty crimes become nearly impossible to successfully charge. It might be OK if they start doing this year after year, and perhaps by year 3 or 4 courts would side with the city, just like the courts would eventually side with the police if they started to enforce low level speeding offences on the highway.

[Spokes]

Sounds like homecoming was fairly tame this year compared to what they thought it could have been