Show Us Your Papers in Canadian Chat

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:21:31 EDT

Snickerdo : I've already done the calculations. I can afford a mortgage, I can afford the taxes and I can afford the utilities. The issue is that I can't save up for a downpayment, and purchasing capital items such as appliances for the kitchen and laundry room would be difficult as well.

My plan is to buy the house, renovate the basement into a separate apartment and then rent it out. That will pay the mortgage and the taxes. All I'd need to pay would be my utilities. I'd end up significantly financially better off than I am now, it's just logistically difficult difficult difficult to get to that place.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:43:42 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by dirtyjeffer :

from your post, i thought you meant something different, and i wasn't suggesting Snickerdo go out and buy a 10 room house.

i just meant that if you pay $800 for rent, don't go out looking for a house that will have an $800 mortgage payment, because you will need to factor in things like taxes, condo fees (if it is a condo), etc...if you find that $800 to be affordable, you may need a house with $550 mortgage payment, $200 for taxes (or alter the numbers a bit if condo fees need to be covered in there)...perhaps you need to adjust if your current rent includes utilities as well...that's what i meant.

Sounds like we were making the same point. :)

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:39:26 EDT

dirtyjeffer : from your post, i thought you meant something different, and i wasn't suggesting Snickerdo go out and buy a 10 room house.

i just meant that if you pay $800 for rent, don't go out looking for a house that will have an $800 mortgage payment, because you will need to factor in things like taxes, condo fees (if it is a condo), etc...if you find that $800 to be affordable, you may need a house with $550 mortgage payment, $200 for taxes (or alter the numbers a bit if condo fees need to be covered in there)...perhaps you need to adjust if your current rent includes utilities as well...that's what i meant.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:26:18 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by dirtyjeffer :

said by NCRGuy :

Also, when you look at what you can afford to pay in rent, it's easy to say, "Well, that's one hell of a mortgage payment I could be making." That's all well and good if the mortgage payment was the only cost you had to worry about. Add on property taxes, common expenses if you buy a condo or similar type development, and utilities that may have been included in your rent, it can add up quickly.

yea, but all those costs are already factored in your "rent"...if you rent a condo for $1000/month, that already includes the condo fees and any other associated costs that the owner has to pay...they don't rent the place out for the same as their mortgage payment and eat the rest of the fees...they cover all the costs of the dwelling, and add a little for "profit", which helps cover any repairs and wear and tear maintenance that may need to be covered (and a security deposit can also help cover and damages).

for example, there is a place for sale near the University here (a block away, prime location for student rentals)...the 10 bedroom, two bathroom unit is listed for $449,000 (a little overpriced, but forget that part for now)...your mortgage payment would be about $2100/month P&I...the place is currently fully rented, and brings in $4500/month in rent...the tenants pay their utilities, but you still need to pay for taxes and any repairs/maintenance of the unit...i don't know what the taxes would be, but they are probably about $500/month...provided you can keep the place rented, you can make some pretty decent money.

DJ,

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, when you rent a condo, the owners expenses are factored in, and taxes and condo fees are included in the rent. How that's relevant to my point I don't know.

My point is that when you rent and then move on to ownership, there are more costs than the mortgage to worry about. While yes, the rent on a condo would incorporate all of the owners expenses, a mortgage is not a fixed amount, and depends on the owner. Depending on the size of one's mortgage payments, it may not even be possible to recoup one's costs. The rent set is not just an addition of all the costs, it also has to be competitive in the current rental market.

As to the 10 bedroom home, again, I'm not really sure of your point. Yes, landlords make money, but I think transitioning from a tenant in one room of a 10-room house to property owner would be an even bigger financial challenge.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:51:16 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:44:25 EDT

urbanriot :

said by Snickerdo :

Unlike a lot of other kids my age who actually have managed to pull off buying a house, I don't have the benefit of crawling to Mommy and Daddy and getting a $15,000 interest-free loan that I probably would never have to pay back.

Well, yea, that was kind of the other point I was making. Instead of kids going out and working their asses off to pay for school, buy a house, whatever... they're growing up slower, leeching off of Mommy and Daddy more than ever. You don't have that benefit, I never had that benefit, but almost every single person I know partied it up through university and had a blast. Many of them still live at home!

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:27:24 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by Snickerdo :

I can totally afford to pay for a mortgage right now. That's not the problem. The problem is saving money for a decent downpayment in any reasonable sort of timeframe. That's much more difficult, especially when you have other debt and expenses that also need to be dealt with. Unlike a lot of other kids my age who actually have managed to pull off buying a house, I don't have the benefit of crawling to Mommy and Daddy and getting a $15,000 interest-free loan that I probably would never have to pay back.

This is it -- the downpayment. Also, when you look at what you can afford to pay in rent, it's easy to say, "Well, that's one hell of a mortgage payment I could be making." That's all well and good if the mortgage payment was the only cost you had to worry about. Add on property taxes, common expenses if you buy a condo or similar type development, and utilities that may have been included in your rent, it can add up quickly.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:26:27 EDT

dirtyjeffer : do you have any RRSP's?

you can withdraw them (no penalty) to use as your down payment, interest free, for 15 years (you have to start paying them back after year 3 or declare that year's "portioned payment" as "income").
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:11:36 EDT

Snickerdo : I can totally afford to pay for a mortgage right now. That's not the problem. The problem is saving money for a decent downpayment in any reasonable sort of timeframe. That's much more difficult, especially when you have other debt and expenses that also need to be dealt with. Unlike a lot of other kids my age who actually have managed to pull off buying a house, I don't have the benefit of crawling to Mommy and Daddy and getting a $15,000 interest-free loan that I probably would never have to pay back.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:39:59 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by Snickerdo :

Hell, I'm 26 and I've got a ways to go, and I live on my own and take care of myself otherwise.

Like DJ says you're paying rent anyways might as well be a mortgage.

I remember my landlord pulling up in a new Grand National telling me about his upcoming trip to Florida and I said screw this I am buying.

I was 26 in University with a family and a job. So I bought the cheapest house on the biggest lot in a good neighbourhood.
I split with my brother on it and bought him out several years later. Where there's a will there's a way.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:21:28 EDT

dirtyjeffer : well, that really depends on the kind of home you want to buy...remember, if you are paying rent, you are paying a mortgage, just not your own.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:22:40 EDT

Its a Secret :

said by Snickerdo :

It's not so much about work ethic as it is being able to get a good high-paying job right out of high school where you can afford to blow your money on all sorts of useless stuff, AND buy a house.

That's what the marketer's tell you, and is not the reality of life.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:20:49 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by urbanriot :

How many 22 year olds today have the work ethic to do that today? If I wasn't a complete fuckup when I was 22, I could have easily picked up a mortgage and bought a house with a healthy down payment. If my parents raised me the same way their parents raised them, I probably would have.

It's not so much about work ethic as it is being able to get a good high-paying job right out of high school where you can afford to blow your money on all sorts of useless stuff, AND buy a house.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:13:26 EDT

urbanriot :

said by Snickerdo :

My father bought his first home when he was 22. How many 22 year olds today can afford to do that? Hell, I'm 26 and I've got a ways to go, and I live on my own and take care of myself otherwise.

How many 22 year olds today have the work ethic to do that today? If I wasn't a complete fuckup when I was 22, I could have easily picked up a mortgage and bought a house with a healthy down payment. If my parents raised me the same way their parents raised them, I probably would have.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:11:49 EDT

Mark Z :

said by urbanriot :

I don't believe bubble wrapping children and locking down teenagers is helping...

Right on! :D

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:54:32 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by urbanriot :

"life-long job?" Both my parents and grandparents often go on about how many jobs they had while trying to raise their families. Hell, my Dad's mentioned so many different jobs that he had that it sounds like he's been alive 200 years, rather than 60 or so. I don't know that job stability or the job market has anything to do with it... well, or the cost of education... My grandparents were involved in various aspects of wars, so I don't know what education would have cost then. My father... hmm, he worked a full time, evening job while going to school to feed the family, so I don't know about that one either...

My father has had precisely two major jobs during his life - Hayes Dana (where he was laid off), and General Motors (where he took a buyout that he now won't be getting because of Chapter 11, but he's still got his pension). His father was a boiler engineer when they lived in Venezula, then he worked at a mine in Timmins, then when they moved to St. Catharines he worked for Ferranti-Packard, and then he retired. My mom's dad came to Canada in 1952, got a job with Otis in Hamilton, drove from St. Catharines to Hamilton for over 30 years, and had that job until he retired. I have a hard time believing that everyone who raised me was the exception to the rule.

said by urbanriot :

You might be right about social values though. I don't know that people have any less capabilities or options now than generations prior, but something's definitely changing. I don't believe bubble wrapping children and locking down teenagers is helping...

My father bought his first home when he was 22. How many 22 year olds today can afford to do that? Hell, I'm 26 and I've got a ways to go, and I live on my own and take care of myself otherwise.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:51:23 EDT

elwoodblues : My dad had (to the best of my knowledge) 3 jobs in his life (not including the farm work he had to do when he immigrated here).

I on the other hand (and it's partly me because I get bored after a couple of years) since I was a kid well over a dozen different jobs. The longest I stayed anywhere was 7yrs, on average its 2-3yrs (man it's tough to keep to 2 pages on my resume with my history)
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:46:48 EDT

urbanriot : "life-long job?" Both my parents and grandparents often go on about how many jobs they had while trying to raise their families. Hell, my Dad's mentioned so many different jobs that he had that it sounds like he's been alive 200 years, rather than 60 or so. I don't know that job stability or the job market has anything to do with it... well, or the cost of education... My grandparents were involved in various aspects of wars, so I don't know what education would have cost then. My father... hmm, he worked a full time, evening job while going to school to feed the family, so I don't know about that one either...

You might be right about social values though. I don't know that people have any less capabilities or options now than generations prior, but something's definitely changing. I don't believe bubble wrapping children and locking down teenagers is helping...

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:26:22 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by urbanriot :

But don't we have that problem now? With every generation it seems the age of 'adult' is going up, and this isn't the fault of each latest generation.

That's more a result of the job market and cost of education and living than social values, though. If kids could still go out and get a life-long job that can buy a house and feed a wife and kids at 18, I'm sure it would still be happening.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:23:45 EDT

urbanriot :

said by Snickerdo :

True, children lack the same mental capacity and ability to grasp consequences as adults, but that doesn't mean that they should be locked away and not allowed to explore their ability to make choices and decisions. If we did that, we'd end up with some very fucked up and naive children who wouldn't know how to function as adults.

But don't we have that problem now? With every generation it seems the age of 'adult' is going up, and this isn't the fault of each latest generation.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:22:49 EDT

dirtyjeffer : yes, you will. :)

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:21:39 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by dirtyjeffer :

yea, but watch what you say, you aren't protected by the YJA anymore. ;) :p

Nope, but I'll always be protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. :D

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:20:38 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by Snickerdo :

said by dirtyjeffer :

that wasn't hate speech.

Yeah, but in Junkmail's world, I must be one of those self-hating Christians.

:uhh:

yea, but watch what you say, you aren't protected by the YJA anymore. ;) :p
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:18:52 EDT

Its a Secret : But, we're back on topic now... :p

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:18:27 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by dirtyjeffer :

that wasn't hate speech.

Yeah, but in Junkmail's world, I must be one of those self-hating Christians.

:uhh:

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:17:19 EDT

dirtyjeffer : that wasn't hate speech.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:16:02 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by TKJunkMail :

That's so that his religious hate speech would be relatively hidden.

Hate speech? No. It's called personal experience.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:14:53 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by dirtyjeffer :

well snick, i learned something from your post...how to write really, really, really, really small. :)

That's so that his religious hate speech would be relatively hidden.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:12:53 EDT

dirtyjeffer : well snick, i learned something from your post...how to write really, really, really, really small. :)

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:09:34 EDT

Its a Secret :

said by Snickerdo :

If we did that, we'd end up with some very fucked up and naive children who wouldn't know how to function as adults.

Uh, dude... we already have them. Welcome to the 'new thought' version of parenting, a massive fail. You don't even need to add the Christian crapola...
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:59:59 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by dirtyjeffer :

hehehe...you misunderstood my post Snick...i am not the one who is saying the "kids didn't know any better"...i was using "your" argument from earlier threads.

Haha, touche ;)

Still, it's a bad argument. True, children lack the same mental capacity and ability to grasp consequences as adults, but that doesn't mean that they should be locked away and not allowed to explore their ability to make choices and decisions. If we did that, we'd end up with some very fucked up and naive children who wouldn't know how to function as adults. We already have them, they're called children who grew up in fundamentalist Christian homes, but I digress...
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:55:21 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by Snickerdo :

... but every time a kid does something stupid and gets handed what you consider to be a "light" youth sentence, you're one of the first people going on about how the child would have known the difference between right and wrong and that they should receive the same sentence as an adult. You're contradicting yourself.

Which is it, jeffer?

hehehe...you misunderstood my post Snick...i am not the one who is saying the "kids didn't know any better"...i was using "your" argument from earlier threads.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:51:30 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by dirtyjeffer :

no, but in the case of adults, we hope they have the mental capacity to make the proper choices...kids (apparently, as has been pleaded about in here over the years), lack the mental capacity to properly know right from wrong

... but every time a kid does something stupid and gets handed what you consider to be a "light" youth sentence, you're one of the first people going on about how the child would have known the difference between right and wrong and that they should receive the same sentence as an adult. You're contradicting yourself.

Which is it, jeffer?
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:43:09 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by Snickerdo :

Well, that can apply to anyone at any age. Most crimes are committed at night in the dark. I suppose a dusk-to-dawn curfew for everyone not on authorized business would be right up your alley, eh?

no, but in the case of adults, we hope they have the mental capacity to make the proper choices...kids (apparently, as has been pleaded about in here over the years), lack the mental capacity to properly know right from wrong...so why put them in a position where making the wrong choice becomes so easy to do...they aren't old enough to drink, so they aren't going to be out socializing at the bars...most of them aren't going to be working anywhere that late, so they aren't working the "late shift"...most of them are still (or should be) in school, so they should be at home, in bed, resting for school in the morning (during the school year)...really, there isn't very much to do at 2 in the morning if you are under 16 (to be honest, even at my age, there still isn't much to do)...i know they won't be doing laundry at the 24 hour laundromat.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:38:28 EDT

dirtyjeffer : hey, i never said i was an angel. ;)

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:38:24 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by dirtyjeffer :

it would be like leaving the kids with the house for the weekend, with a fully stocked bar, left wide open, and telling them nicely "Now boys, don't be drinking any of that booze"...it doesn't mean that they WILL drink the booze, but it sure will be tempting.

Well, that can apply to anyone at any age. Most crimes are committed at night in the dark. I suppose a dusk-to-dawn curfew for everyone not on authorized business would be right up your alley, eh?
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:37:40 EDT

Its a Secret : DJ, even if you never got into the 'rents booze, I'm sure that it didn't mean you abstained that weekend. I know i didn't at that age... :D

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:35:15 EDT

dirtyjeffer : true, it can go both ways...but "harms way" could also include the opportunity for the kids to be in a potential position to do wrong...it would be like leaving the kids with the house for the weekend, with a fully stocked bar, left wide open, and telling them nicely "Now boys, don't be drinking any of that booze"...it doesn't mean that they WILL drink the booze, but it sure will be tempting.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:19:43 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by dirtyjeffer :

it was a law created because too many "kids" were out causing trouble...and with our lax punishment, why wouldn't they be?

Actually, that wasn't why the law was created. The law was created to ensure that young kids aren't out at night and possibly in harms way. With cell phones and the like, the need for that is more or less redundant.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:12:44 EDT

Its a Secret : Once again: It's a presumption of guilt. Being out late doesn't mean you're doing wrong. I get what you mean, but there has to be some common sense applied as well.

What's next? Martial Law?

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:04:48 EDT

dirtyjeffer : it was a law created because too many "kids" were out causing trouble...and with our lax punishment, why wouldn't they be?
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:00:35 EDT

Its a Secret :

said by dirtyjeffer :

...it's no coincidence that "kids" out in the middle of night are usually up to no good:

That's a presumption of guilt. Charter of Right's, anyone?
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:59:31 EDT

dirtyjeffer : i used to play "army" back in the days (probably very similar type of game), but we weren't out past midnight...i'll admit, when i was out past midnight a few times, i shouldn't have been.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:55:42 EDT

urbanriot :

said by dirtyjeffer :

it's no coincidence that "kids" out in the middle of night are usually up to no good

I disagree. Large groups of us would play 'man hunt' and other fun games late into the night, between neighboorhood kids ages 10+ while growing up in Niagara Falls and we were never "up to no good". In fact I'd suggest there's just as many people that are out who are up to no good as there are teenagers that are up to no good. I see kids walking home all the time here in St. Catharines, and I've never seen them do any wrong.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:47:19 EDT

dirtyjeffer : while the age of these "kids" isn't known just yet (so this law may not matter in this particular case), it's no coincidence that "kids" out in the middle of night are usually up to no good:

»lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/···786.html
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:47:17 EDT

Mashiki :

said by elwoodblues :

Is crime up? Really? Based on what numbers? When were stats started? Are there more kids these days then before?

Trending is calculated internally for police services week by week. Sometimes day by day, if you don't think it isn't you're being silly. Every cop does it on their beat, and every service does it when they're attempting to crack down on a particular crime trend.

(Answer other posts later :p )

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:26:50 EDT

Last Parade :

said by urbanriot :

said by Last Parade :

Erm, don't you remember all the schoolground arson that took place in Fort Erie last year?

I remember the ones in Crystal Beach. Were they perpetrated by kids?

yes

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:26:36 EDT

Last Parade :

said by elwoodblues :

Sorry I live in Toronto, guess it was never reported up here.

I'm sorry I mistook you for urbanriot somehow.

edit: wait a second, no I didn't; I didn't even reply to you.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:18:50 EDT

urbanriot :

said by Last Parade :

Erm, don't you remember all the schoolground arson that took place in Fort Erie last year?

I remember the ones in Crystal Beach. Were they perpetrated by kids?

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:47:33 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by elwoodblues :

I was out past midnight at 15 (and that was 1 generation ago) and I've turned out fine.

So you say. :D :D

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:46:40 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by Last Parade :

Erm, don't you remember all the schoolground arson that took place in Fort Erie last year?

And the issue is teens, that are gang members, that are the main worry. No parental controls at all and the teens being members of criminal organizations. These organizations use teens specifically because the law is so lenient on them when they commit crimes. The adults USE these teens to avoid being jailed themselves.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:45:43 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by Wolfie00 :

:uhh:

»OPP Officer Charged For Allegedly Falsifying Traffic Stops

Bingo has been cancelled tonight. :p

One out of a few thousand so far. How much mayhem by the miscreants can be prevented?
Bingo's open and starts early tonight the kiddies can be in before 12.
Not that they should be gambling, but heh, you want them to run the streets.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:45:02 EDT

elwoodblues : Sorry I live in Toronto, guess it was never reported up here.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:44:27 EDT

elwoodblues : What the hell does that have to do with coddling?

I was out past midnight at 15 (and that was 1 generation ago) and I've turned out fine. I didn't need a headline grabbing cop to decide to haul me down to the station and call my parents (and if he did the old man would have taken the belt to me when I got home)because I was "loitering"
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:41:34 EDT

Last Parade :

said by urbanriot :

No it's not. You've created separate, strict rules for them to follow that adults don't have to follow. That's not treating them as adults. This yet another example of rule making that's raising the age in which teenagers "grow up." I go by a local Tim Hortin's and there's about 20 rough looking adults hanging outside there after midnight... why can't someone 16 years old do the same, with their friends?

Someone brought up arson... all of the big arsons around here were perpetrated by adult arsonists. A few years back, we had a serial arsonist in his 30's that was a repeat offender, thrown in jail. Now the local police are actively looking for another arsonist whose description doesn't match a teen.

This sounds like people going after teens because they don't like teens, and they've forgotten what it was like to be a teen.

I've yet to see a proven correlation between high crime and teens out past midnight, let alone a ratio of teen crime (under 16) and adult crime.

Erm, don't you remember all the schoolground arson that took place in Fort Erie last year?

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:38:58 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by elwoodblues :

some of you have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager.

I haven't forgotten, and it didn't include hanging out after 12 when I was 15 and under.

This probably wasn't an issue a generation or two ago as they either worked or went to school everyday like I did.

Now their coddled by the likes of some of you people so they can hang out all night.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:35:28 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by NCRGuy :

said by dirtyjeffer :

said by urbanriot :

Adults don't have to walk around in fear that they'll be apprehended and hauled into a police station for nothing at all. Great way to instill fear of authority in citizens... start them off at an early age.

adults who aren't breaking the law don't have to fear, and neither do the kids.

Bingo.

:uhh:

»OPP Officer Charged For Allegedly Falsifying Traffic Stops

Bingo has been cancelled tonight. :p
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:29:38 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by NCRGuy :

said by elwoodblues :

They are hanging out after midnight with their friends, not harming anyone. Yep, that treats them like adults and gives them plenty of respect for the police.

There's nothing stopping them from hanging out with their friends -- it's where they do the hanging out they have to pay attention to. Teaching them that there are rules that need to be followed is treating them like adults.

I'm not going to even bother, as urbanriot said, some of you have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager. I may be far removed from being one, but I haven't forgotten.

Now he's a better question, do all "youth crimes" occur after midnight?
Do the statistics that nobody has,say that a greater proportion of crime by teens occurs after midnight?
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:03:25 EDT

urbanriot : No it's not. You've created separate, strict rules for them to follow that adults don't have to follow. That's not treating them as adults. This yet another example of rule making that's raising the age in which teenagers "grow up." I go by a local Tim Hortin's and there's about 20 rough looking adults hanging outside there after midnight... why can't someone 16 years old do the same, with their friends?

Someone brought up arson... all of the big arsons around here were perpetrated by adult arsonists. A few years back, we had a serial arsonist in his 30's that was a repeat offender, thrown in jail. Now the local police are actively looking for another arsonist whose description doesn't match a teen.

This sounds like people going after teens because they don't like teens, and they've forgotten what it was like to be a teen.

I've yet to see a proven correlation between high crime and teens out past midnight, let alone a ratio of teen crime (under 16) and adult crime.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:52:47 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by elwoodblues :

They are hanging out after midnight with their friends, not harming anyone. Yep, that treats them like adults and gives them plenty of respect for the police.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:50:22 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by dirtyjeffer :

adults who aren't breaking the law don't have to fear, and neither do the kids.

Bingo.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:42:49 EDT

dirtyjeffer : an interesting story (of which there are a total of five parts to):

1) »www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi···x?e=7198

2) »www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi···x?e=7199

3) »www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi···x?e=7200

4) »www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi···x?e=7203

5) »www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi···x?e=7205

and a follow up: »www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi···x?e=7206
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:39:53 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by Wolfie00 :

Don't worry, SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino will soon lobby for a new law where "under 16" becomes "everybody"
I just hope the SS-Obergruppenfuhrer's thugs don't taser or shoot

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:36:54 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by elwoodblues :

This man is out of control.

Imagine that. He is going to enforce a law passed by the elected representatives of the people. The nerve!!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:31:49 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

adults who aren't breaking the law don't have to fear, and neither do the kids.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:27:13 EDT

urbanriot :

said by dirtyjeffer :

said by urbanriot :

Maybe if we start treating them as adults, they'll stop acting like children.

that is what they are trying to do.

Adults don't have to walk around in fear that they'll be apprehended and hauled into a police station for nothing at all. Great way to instill fear of authority in citizens... start them off at an early age.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:25:27 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by dirtyjeffer :

said by urbanriot :

Maybe if we start treating them as adults, they'll stop acting like children.

that is what they are trying to do.

They are hanging out after midnight with their friends, not harming anyone. Yep, that treats them like adults and gives them plenty of respect for the police.

I'm going to say that a good number of you here are over 40, and those that subscribe to the right wing mentality have obviously forgotten their roots and what they did when they were kids.

Since there is a law against it(almost 20yrs now) but rarely if ever enforced, but since SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino wants to enforce it , that must be a good thing.
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:20:58 EDT

elwoodblues : Is crime up? Really? Based on what numbers? When were stats started? Are there more kids these days then before?

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

Saying crime is up, is like saying I got a 10% raise this year, which sounds great, but it's out of context, raise based on what number?
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:19:08 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by urbanriot :

Maybe if we start treating them as adults, they'll stop acting like children.

that is what they are trying to do.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:14:06 EDT

urbanriot :

said by peterboro1 :

Maybe if we tip toe around the little darlings a little longer they'll all turn out to be angels.

Maybe if we start treating them as adults, they'll stop acting like children.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:14:04 EDT

dirtyjeffer : with the increase in youth crime over the years, what parent wouldn't want their child home after midnight?

besides, as has been stated, don't hate Fantino for the law, he never made it...it's an almost 20 law that has been on the books forever...if you have a problem with the law, don't hate the cops, as they never made it.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:38:43 EDT

Wolfie00 : If someone is engaged in criminal activity then they made the choice to put themselves at risk of apprehension and everything that goes with it. It's not the same as being apprehended just because you exist, and it happens to be a particular time of night.

And in case you didn't know, frightened people can do irrational things, the most common of which in these circumstances is trying to run away. All the more likely if the subject is an immature youngster or, as in the other case, mentally handicapped. You might think differently if the victim of police zealotry was your own kid.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:23:25 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by Wolfie00 :

The next time he's out he might be motivated to break some windows or set fire to something, since he's going to be treated as a criminal anyway! :p

Maybe if we tip toe around the little darlings a little longer they'll all turn out to be angels. :p

What would happen if a kid doesn't want to be "apprehended and detained", or is just plain frightened?

Well they just let them go about their business in the middle of the night then. Wouldn't want to inconvenience them or heaven forbid frighten them. :huh:

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:17:30 EDT

Wolfie00 : Maybe you need to look up the definitions of the words "apprehend" and "detain" to see that I was characterizing the situation accurately. Contrast those terms with the word "freedom".

As for strawmen and slippery slopes and the "nothing to fear" argument, we are seeing an example being played out before our very eyes. A law that was nominally intended, under the Child and Family Services Act, for the protection and well-being of children, is now being used by Fantino's brownshirts to "crack down" (their words) on under-age teens as a method of facilitating crime control without actually having to provide any evidence of any actual crime being committed.

The safety and well-being of the kids is in no way Fantino's concern here and given the track record of his goons and their love of guns and tasers, I would suspect the kids are being considerably endangered. What would happen if a kid doesn't want to be "apprehended and detained", or is just plain frightened? Hint: see other thread, the one titled "Disabled man dead after confrontation with OPP".
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:50:57 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by Wolfie00 :

said by NCRGuy :

If they aren't loitering, which 15 year olds have no reason to be doing after midnight, they have nothing to worry about.

According to what universal standard? Maybe if 15 year olds have "no reason" to be out after midnight then 14 year olds have "no reason" to be out after 11:00 and 20 year olds have "no reason" to be out after 1:00AM. Why should they need a "reason" in a free society?

And one needs to be very, very skeptical of any statement defending any law that is of the form "If ... then they have nothing to worry about". That is the classic and fallacious defense of all bad or repressive laws, and it frequently turns out that all sorts of innocent people end up having lots to worry about!

According to the standard that they are children. You were the one talking about kids living in fear because of this law, and I was merely pointing out why they had nothing to fear. The fallacious arguments are in the slippery slopes and straw men being through around here.

said by NCRGuy :

And if they are out, all that happens is they get sent back to their parents. Take a deep breath and move on.

Again, we'll go back to the law:

quote:
(6)Where a child who is actually or apparently less than sixteen years of age is in a place to which the public has access between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. and is not accompanied by a person described in clause (5) (b), a peace officer may apprehend the child without a warrant and proceed as if the child had been apprehended under subsection 42 (1).

And what does the relevant element of 42(1) have to say?

quote:
42.(1)(a) shall return the child to the child’s parent or other person having charge of the child as soon as practicable; or

(b) where it is not possible to return the child to the parent or other person within a reasonable time, shall take the child to a place of safety to be detained there until the child can be returned to the parent or other person.

They are not going to jail, so again, take a deep breath and move on.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:43:22 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by urbanriot :

said by NCRGuy :

Again, read the law. If they aren't loitering, which 15 year olds have no reason to be doing after midnight, they have nothing to worry about.

And if they are out, all that happens is they get sent back to their parents. Take a deep breath and move on.

Take a breath and move on?! We either have a law that's been misinterpreted by the OPP (!) or the Star article was flat out wrong - TFA states, in no uncertain terms, that if a teenager under 17 is outside after midnight, they will be aprehended.

NCRGuy, thanks for pasting the law itself. Someone should out the Star for sensationalizing yet again, if they have their facts wrong. Anyone have an account with that site?

You mean the media misunderstood something? Well, I never! I always thought that if the media said it, it must be true. :uhh:

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:42:04 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by elwoodblues :

said by NCRGuy :

said by urbanriot :

Sensationalize? If anything you're downplaying the stripping of civil liberties and a repression of freedom masked under the guise of crime prevention. If a teenager goes outside after midnight, from the article, "police said, they will apprehend the child without a warrant." How can a teenager not be fearful of being outside with threats of that nature.

Again, read the law. If they aren't loitering, which 15 year olds have no reason to be doing after midnight, they have nothing to worry about.

And if they are out, all that happens is they get sent back to their parents. Take a deep breath and move on.

loiter
(redirected from loitering)
Also found in: Legal, Idioms, Wikipedia 0.03 sec.
loiÂ·ter (loitr)
intr.v. loiÂ·tered, loiÂ·terÂ·ing, loiÂ·ters
1. To stand idly about; linger aimlessly.
2. To proceed slowly or with many stops: loitered all the way home.
3. To delay or dawdle: loiter over a task.

Based on this definition, waiting for the bus is loitering.

No it isn't.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:13:53 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by NCRGuy :

If they aren't loitering, which 15 year olds have no reason to be doing after midnight, they have nothing to worry about.

said by NCRGuy :

And if they are out, all that happens is they get sent back to their parents. Take a deep breath and move on.

"All that happens" is that they get apprehended by the police and forcibly confined. Way to establish an innocent and impressionable young person's relationship with the police. The next time he's out he might be motivated to break some windows or set fire to something, since he's going to be treated as a criminal anyway! :p
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:07:37 EDT

urbanriot :

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:14:01 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by NCRGuy :

loiter
(redirected from loitering)
Also found in: Legal, Idioms, Wikipedia 0.03 sec.
loiÂ·ter (loitr)
intr.v. loiÂ·tered, loiÂ·terÂ·ing, loiÂ·ters
1. To stand idly about; linger aimlessly.
2. To proceed slowly or with many stops: loitered all the way home.
3. To delay or dawdle: loiter over a task.

Based on this definition, waiting for the bus is loitering.
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:11:37 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by dirtyjeffer :

said by urbanriot :

When I was 16 I was a dishwasher at a restaurant so I could save up to buy a car, and the kitchen didn't close until 12:30AM on a good night... it's hard to believe that it was illegal to be biking home from work.

Bad example, driving is a privllege, being out and about is a RIGHT
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:46:56 EDT

NCRGuy :

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:37:30 EDT

urbanriot : Sensationalize? If anything you're downplaying the stripping of civil liberties and a repression of freedom masked under the guise of crime prevention. If a teenager goes outside after midnight, from the article, "police said, they will apprehend the child without a warrant." How can a teenager not be fearful of being outside with threats of that nature.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:11:08 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by urbanriot :

Regardless of whether or not the police will enforce the law, as they insist they will, there's no reason why innocent teenagers under 17 need to live in fear when they're outside.

"live in fear"?!?!...there is no need to sensationalize this.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:31:34 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Thingamajig :

said by Wolfie00 :

Don't worry, SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino will soon lobby for a new law where "under 16" becomes "everybody", and house parties will become illegal in case the party-goers might be conspiring a putsch to overthrow the regime. :p

I just hope the SS-Obergruppenfuhrer's thugs don't taser or shoot those kids when they're on their way into "custody".

BTW, parties are allowed in a free society, but unreasonable noise late at night is not. This is another example of muddled values, because problems like that can be dealt with through existing laws, and I for one greatly value the privilege of living in a free society. Or at least it was, pre-Fantino.

Didn't you just defeat your own argument? This isn't a new law.

Not stated very well, perhaps -- I thought it was clear that I was saying that this bad law, like other bad laws of the same ilk (racing and stunt driving) were enacted as unjustifiably pre-emptive laws of convenience in the existence of already adequate statutes, and serve merely to facilitate enforcement. That is a dangerous path to start down from a civil rights standpoint.

A key question that an appellate court could or should look at is this. What is the more serious social evil, that a juvenile offender potentially escapes conviction for lack of evidence, or that an innocent juvenile who committed no offense is treated as guilty? I think the answer, as embodied in our constitutional principles, is quite clear to anyone who gives it calm and reasonable consideration.

That said, the statute in question here is somewhat borderline as there are also issues of child welfare and protection being addressed (although that is sure as hell not what Fantino is concerned about). At best it's a borderline law that has some arguable benefit -- and so one of the issues here is that a law that most police officers would be better off ignoring in the vast majority of cases has suddenly captured the overzealous attention of SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino. It's the combination of a borderline law ruthlessly enforced by a fanatic that is so dangerous.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:14:48 EDT

51019512 : Arrest them all, call CFS and file charges on the parents.

Thats what should be done.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:09:09 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by urbanriot :

Yea, good point.

said by Mashiki :

The law is the law, that's it. And governments get pissy over the police not enforcing the law, that's what they're paid for.

That's what I get for giving that article a fridge look. Immediately after I read the title the hairs on the back of my neck went up and I was mistakenly under the impression Fantino was suggesting that this become law, not that it was already law! Ugh.

When I was 16 I was a dishwasher at a restaurant so I could save up to buy a car, and the kitchen didn't close until 12:30AM on a good night... it's hard to believe that it was illegal to be biking home from work.

Here's the thing...I don't believe it either was or is. Let's read the actual law:

quote:
79.(5)No parent of a child less than sixteen years of age shall permit the child to,

(a) loiter in a public place between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.; or

(b) be in a place of public entertainment between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., unless the parent accompanies the child or authorizes a specified individual eighteen years of age or older to accompany the child.

First of all, at age 16, you are not subject to the law -- it applies only to those less than 16. But let us assume you were only 15 when you were working. It does not say that those under 16 cannot be out after midnight, it says that they cannot be loitering. Going from your place of work to your home is not loitering.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:01:40 EDT

NCRGuy :

said by Mashiki :

I'm looking at it from both PoV's, don't mistake me on that. That some will enforce it without any question(you do have cops like that), and others who won't give a damn, and still others who will be middle of the road. The law is the law, that's it. And governments get pissy over the police not enforcing the law, that's what they're paid for. Remember that it's a s/c crime(summery conviction offence(less than 6mo). SC charges at the most are very weak. And in most cases like this I doubt they'd get anywhere.

It is on the books now(C.F.S.A. RSO 1990). It simply hasn't been proactively enforced. I remember when it came out, and the hoopla back then. Don't worry, I believe enforcement does wrong, the difference is when they do it I expect that the punishment to be stiffer when they(can and do) get caught. Since they're held to a higher standard.

It is not a summary conviction offence, as it is not a criminal charge -- it is a provincial offence. Also, the maximum jail time is one year (see s.85).

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:51:13 EDT

urbanriot : Regardless of whether or not the police will enforce the law, as they insist they will, there's no reason why innocent teenagers under 17 need to live in fear when they're outside.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:49:20 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by urbanriot :

Because they're actively going to enforce it now, whereas they clearly were not before.

i am quite confident that "actively enforce it" still leaves it up to the officers discretion...just like they reduce fines for speeding, or give warnings instead of tickets on some infractions...please note, only a small handful of cops are dicks...most of them are regular people, like you and me. :)
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:46:34 EDT

urbanriot : Because they're actively going to enforce it now, whereas they clearly were not before.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:45:11 EDT

dirtyjeffer : sounds about right (the time lines, as i said i don't know the details of the graduated licenses, although i know they are looking at making it longer)...that said, if some responsible 16 year old is driving himself home at night after work, i don't think there would be an issue...as shaner (and others have said), the law has been on the books for almost 20 years...it hasn't been an issue since 1990, why the fuss now?
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:43:07 EDT

urbanriot : In a best case scenario, after taking an official driving course, you can have your license eight months into being 16. So it is possible for a 16 year old to be apprehended without a warrant, while driving their car home from work.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:32:50 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

same here...however, i don't think that is possible anymore...with graduated licences, you can't drive past dusk until you have your G2 (i think)...it isn't a "easy" as it was when we were younger...most 16 year olds will only have a G1 at most.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:14:37 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Mashiki :

said by Wolfie00 :

Police may arrest if they "find committing" or have "reasonable grounds" to believe that an arrestable offence has occurred...

I really don't want to quote the entire thing. But I'll bold the important part. Now, lets go with s/c, hyd, and ind offences and you'll see where the fun part begins.

edit: The problem is you can't arrest for all arrestable offences. That's the whole RICEPPPP bit, and it's just a pita. Easier for warnings, appearance notices, and all the rest in most cases. There's very few cases where you're actually arresting someone for a lot of crimes anymore which is actually kind of funny.

Sorry, that doesn't really tell me anything. I was asked to Google "find committing" and what it turned up not only supports exactly what I said earlier, but actually strengthens it -- by showing that there is a general intent in law to require strong evidence for an arrest in order to prevent frivolous or prejudicially motivated arrests (by "prejudicial" I don't mean in a racist sense, but in the sense of "you look like the type"). Accusing me of being "ignorant of law" doesn't really advance your case, especially when further research seems to bear out exactly what I've been saying.

Again, I don't dispute that this "curfew" law is on the books. The argument is about why it shouldn't be.

I would further suggest that the mere fact that SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino has embraced it with such unbridled enthusiasm -- given his track record -- is proof enough that it shouldn't exist. OK, I'm being a little facetious here, but the guy is a major overzealous asshat. :p
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:57:23 EDT

urbanriot : Yea, good point.

said by Mashiki :

The law is the law, that's it. And governments get pissy over the police not enforcing the law, that's what they're paid for.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:52:35 EDT

shaner : Let me ask you this; when we were teens, were we ever arrested for loitering, underage drinking, or public nuisance even though we freely admit to breaking all those laws? No, we weren't. Because we expect our police to use a reasonable application of the law. Most will, some won't in this case. But, this law has already been on the books for 19 years and it hasn't been abused by the police.

As much as I don't like Fantino, and I had run ins with him in London, I have to believe this announcement of the enforcement of this existing law is more of a warning shot to parents to lwt them knoe they will be held somewhat responsible for their little hooligans running around.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:37:15 EDT

Mashiki :

said by Wolfie00 :

Police may arrest if they "find committing" or have "reasonable grounds" to believe that an arrestable offence has occurred...

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:32:42 EDT

Mashiki : I'm looking at it from both PoV's, don't mistake me on that. That some will enforce it without any question(you do have cops like that), and others who won't give a damn, and still others who will be middle of the road. The law is the law, that's it. And governments get pissy over the police not enforcing the law, that's what they're paid for. Remember that it's a s/c crime(summery conviction offence(less than 6mo). SC charges at the most are very weak. And in most cases like this I doubt they'd get anywhere.

It is on the books now(C.F.S.A. RSO 1990). It simply hasn't been proactively enforced. I remember when it came out, and the hoopla back then. Don't worry, I believe enforcement does wrong, the difference is when they do it I expect that the punishment to be stiffer when they(can and do) get caught. Since they're held to a higher standard.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:32:32 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Mashiki :

... feel free to google "find committing" you'll understand what I mean then ... You don't understand the finer points of the law ...

said by »books.google.com/books?id=RjQ7H9···resnum=8 :
Police may arrest if they "find committing" or have "reasonable grounds" to believe that an arrestable offence has occurred...

Police have the benefit of being able to arrest without witnessing the offense, provided reasonable grounds exists. The following evidence constitutes reasonable grounds:

- confession to any person (police or citizen)
- at least one credible eyewitness, or
- circumstantial evidence that exceeds mere suspicion

...even if reasonable grounds exist to make an arrest, the requirements of sec. 149(1) Provincial Offences Act (POA) must also be fulfilled to justify making the arrest. Justification of the arrest includes evidence that the offender:

- will repeat the offence
- is a danger to the public, or
- will fail to appear in court

And as for this...

said by Mashiki :

The rest of your comment is meandering fluff that doesn't make any sense. The evidence is: "The kid is out after curfew." The "bop" is "why are they out" the "ro" is "reasonable", "the or" is "variable". That's the law.

Talk about meandering ... I know "that's the law". We're discussing why it's a bad law!! :p

--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:22:26 EDT

urbanriot :

said by shaner :

There we so many groups of them, with no cops in sight, no parents, and nobody was acting out or causing any trouble... everyone was happy and conducting themselves well.

Then those kids won't have a problem. The cops know who they are and usually know what they're up to.

No, that's where the problem lies. You and Mashiki are assuming the cops won't literally enforce the law as it's intended (which seems contrary to Mashiki's other suggestions that the law is enforced to the letter) and I'm assuming the cops will literally apply the law whenever they see fit, as they do with other laws, and punish those who may be innocent. But that's the problem with this law... if you're out past midnight you're immediately guilty!

said by Mashiki :

When I say it's not an enforcement issue it's not. The law is on the books because it's on the books. You don't like the law you're placing blame in the wrong area, it's not enforcement, it's legislation where you place the blame.

You keep going on about an issue that I'm not bringing up. Considering this isn't even a law now, how can I "blame" enforcement? I'm suggesting we nip this in the bud before it can wreak havoc. We're practically agreeing! Where we might differ in opinion is your rosy "they do no wrong" outlook on law enforcement, and my expectation that enforcement will end up punishing innocent kids.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:17:20 EDT

shaner :

said by urbanriot :

said by shaner :

I see this as another tool to use when they stumble upon a gaggle of goofs who are up to no good.

I did the same stuff as a teen. I also remember being out late at night and getting in over my head in situations I had no business being involved in.

You grew up in a small town. I spent my teen years between small towns (Milton, Orangeville) and the big city (Toronto). The cops in Milton and Orangeville were far more lenient in their relationships with us teens than the Toronto cops were. Small town cops would show up at our bush parties, just to make sure things were under control. They didn't check ID or dump our beer out. This law, which has been on the books for a very long time, doesn't automatically replace that kind of discretion that cops have always exercised.

I think some of you have disconnected yourselves from your childhoods or had lousy, anti-social childhoods. When I was 14 - 16 there were many nights were myself and/or my friends were going some place or coming back from some place after midnight in the summer or on weekends. Just because you have a large group of kids somewhere, it doesn't mean they're up to no good.

You're right. But the cops know what kids are likely to be up to no good. Those kids just hanging out after a late shift at McDonalds aren't going to be taken in. But, those kids who are known to cause trouble likely will be.

There we so many groups of them, with no cops in sight, no parents, and nobody was acting out or causing any trouble... everyone was happy and conducting themselves well.

Then those kids won't have a problem. The cops know who they are and usually know what they're up to.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:12:49 EDT

Mashiki :

said by Wolfie00 :

No, the police don't have to see the crime being committed, or almost no one would ever be arrested -- but they do [normally] need a reasonable evidentiary basis for believing that the person might have committed it.

You're actually misreading what I said in terms of the original statement, but feel free to google "find committing" you'll understand what I mean then. This is one of the few times I don't feel like spending an afternoon explaining it. You don't understand the finer points of the law and how it applies to being able to apply those laws under the criminal code.

The rest of your comment is meandering fluff that doesn't make any sense. The evidence is: "The kid is out after curfew." The "bop" is "why are they out" the "ro" is "reasonable", "the or" is "variable". That's the law.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:59:46 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Mashiki :

... meaning you have to see the person commit the crime to be able to arrest/charge/give an appearance notice for. You'll find that in a lot of cases, that police have their hands tied by the laws they're supposed to enforce.

No, the police don't have to see the crime being committed, or almost no one would ever be arrested -- but they do [normally] need a reasonable evidentiary basis for believing that the person might have committed it.

Funny, I heard something very much like that before from you in defense of another bad law, the racing and stunt driving law.

Cutting out the BS and getting to its essence, the argument is: this is a great law because it removes that pesky requirement called "evidence", which comes up in connection with that even more pesky constitutional requirement called "due process". It's really inconvenient to the police to be saddled with having to come up with something called "proof" of a crime, and so much easier when they can just act on their own prejudicial beliefs. Thus,


Kid:      I haven't done anything.  Why am I being arrested?
Officer:  Because kids like you are nothing but trouble.

Sorry, but there's no other possible interpretation of the intent of a law that enables this.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:18:38 EDT

Mashiki : Laws are enforced by common sense and at the discretion of the officer. So while a cop 'might' take a kid in if they're out at night, chances are if they're not causing trouble there's a 50/50% they're not. The other option would probably be telling the parents to simply pick up the kid or arranging a ride for them, just to get the problem dealt with.

When I say it's not an enforcement issue it's not. The law is on the books because it's on the books. You don't like the law you're placing blame in the wrong area, it's not enforcement, it's legislation where you place the blame.

It's good to say apprehend someone for 'theft, loitering, graffiti, whatever', the problem is this: If you dig out your handy dandy criminal code, and look at the various crimes. That is "find committing"(Dual Procedure charges) and "not-committing"(Summery Conviction charges), meaning you have to see the person commit the crime to be able to arrest/charge/give an appearance notice for. You'll find that in a lot of cases, that police have their hands tied by the laws they're supposed to enforce. Now this doesn't help, that people don't want to report crimes unless they're handed a wad of cash(aka crimestopers either). Fun stuff right?

Yep. Welcome to law enforcement in Canada.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:02:48 EDT

urbanriot : Well, that's naively obstinate, to suggest that 'the system' works as is intended, laws are enforced strictly 'by the book' and authority doesn't commit actions contrary to how they're supposed to conduct themselves. I don't know what you're saying with "not an enforcement issue"; I'm suggesting that these (just as other laws) can be and are often enforced with a loose interpretation to cover other issues that a particular officer of the law might not like, maybe on a personal level, that will hold up in court because it technically falls under the rules.

With the above suggestion by Fantino, a 16 year old could be riding his bike home from work or his girlfriend's at 1am and get busted for being out after midnight. That's absolutely ridiculous.

If the problem is theft, loitering, graffiti, whatever... apprehend them for those crimes.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:51:17 EDT

Mashiki : Then that's a legislative issue, and you get the government you vote for. You're a non-observant citizen, or you refuse to get involved in the legislative process(i.e. writting(not emailing your MP/MPP)), and so on.

Again, not an enforcement issue. Shit flows downhill, not up. Unless it's on a conveyor. :D

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:48:26 EDT

urbanriot : Yes, and then after complaining you're slapped with your fine and nothing changes. That's why we need to act before the laws are implemented so they're not improperly enforced.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:42:48 EDT

Mashiki :

said by urbanriot :

Yea, right... as if law enforcement have never gone overboard implementing laws.

Law enforcement(that's cops) don't implement them. They enforce them, you don't like the law. Let me point you at the legislature that implements them, and the courts that interpret them.

If you have a problem with the way they're being enforced you go to the courts, which is your legal right. That's where you can complain.

edit: marh engrish is hot todah!

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:38:05 EDT

urbanriot :

said by shaner :

I see this as another tool to use when they stumble upon a gaggle of goofs who are up to no good.

Yea, right... as if law enforcement have never gone overboard implementing laws.

When I grew up, our pedal bikes were the only way we could get around. No bubble wrapping parents to drive us everywhere, no mass transit, just two feet and a heartbeat... and there were many times we'd bike back from our friends places or our girlfriend's after midnight or in the wee hours after falling asleep on the couch.

I think some of you have disconnected yourselves from your childhoods or had lousy, anti-social childhoods. When I was 14 - 16 there were many nights were myself and/or my friends were going some place or coming back from some place after midnight in the summer or on weekends. Just because you have a large group of kids somewhere, it doesn't mean they're up to no good.

(I remember wandering around downtown Valencia when I was younger, and I ran into a group of kids, 15-17 who were in the streets drinking wine, laughing, telling stories. There we so many groups of them, with no cops in sight, no parents, and nobody was acting out or causing any trouble... everyone was happy and conducting themselves well. Eventually, as groups became tired, these teens went home on their own. Are our kids any different? Do all of these stifling rules we have in place that prevent such occasions cause our teens to lash out?)

We're going too far molly-coddling and repressing our children... and our freedoms, with shallow laws that don't attack the real problem.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:06:33 EDT

Thingamajig :

Didn't you just defeat your own argument? This isn't a new law.
--
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:41:18 EDT

Mashiki :

said by Wolfie00 :

Aww. come on, quote it! :D

Does it help?

You know, my first reaction on seeing this topic was that it was about the inherent safety issues about young kids being out late at night. Wrong, of course!! SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino had something else in mind entirely -- the security of the Reich!

There is a reason we have a judicial system. It's to provide a balanced interpretation of law in varying circumstances. The statutes as written are just words -- and subject to the kinds of abuses of law inflicted on the population by zealots like Fantino. It just take a great amount of money and effort to bring it before appellate courts.

I'm old and lazy on friday nights, especially when I fall asleep writing essays. :D

It's a fair point, and I know where you're coming from. While it's not something I can easily dig at it's something I can actually ask around slyly about. But this reeks of higher directives then just from the OPP.

Don't forget either, that if the law is found to be unjust it'll be challenged. If it's not found to be then the courts have decided that it's reasonable for a lawful and just society. Again, that's the whole thing with unelected judges which is all okie in my book. If some group of kids really wanted to take it before the OCJ, and further up. I'm sure they could find a lawyer who'd do it for nothing simply to get their name in the books. Win or lose, it doesn't matter. ;)

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:46:24 EDT

Tyreman : Its one of the neatest ways to get the parent maybe to sign as release or such. at pickup of child and IF any billable/collectable damage was done or alleged to have been by your darling..Ouch!!
--
Southern Ontario,Canada

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:36:51 EDT

mr weather : As a teenager I had an 11:30pm curfew that was strictly enforced by my parents. I think there was maybe a handful of times I stayed out later and that was with their permission.

And even then it was while at a friend's house.
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:29:02 EDT

idlewillkill : I dunno.
Around that age, I partied quite a bit during the summertime.
My friends and I didn't damage things, had relatively quiet parties, etc, etc. Yeah, we drank underage, but pretty sure that law being broken didn't cause any problems.
We haven't murdered anyone yet!
The comments in the article linked are hilarious. How many of us were sleeping before midnight at the age of 15, during the summertime? Didn't we turn out ok?

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:03:23 EDT

WaitForGodot :

said by nitzguy :

... it reminds me of that Episode of the Simpsons where Homer and his drinking buddies wreck things and then Chief Wiggum says "Its the fault of kids, children are now under a dusk to dawn curfew" lol...

Now I finally get the origins of this law -> politicians watching the Simpsons. :D

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:50:43 EDT

dirtyjeffer : well said shaner.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:42:24 EDT

nitzguy : Well, granted, for areas that don't have their own "Police force" the OPP handle the police duties for that town/small city.

Example, a lot of small towns up north here in Ontario, have the OPP do their work.

But, since nobody mentioned it, it reminds me of that Episode of the Simpsons where Homer and his drinking buddies wreck things and then Chief Wiggum says "Its the fault of kids, children are now under a dusk to dawn curfew" lol...

So reminds me of that.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:36:11 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by 51019512 :

OPP can enforce the laws anyplace in Ontario. They could be downtown Toronto and arrest you.
It's a old myth that the OPP can't do anything within the limits of a city that has there own force.

Just like a Niagara Regional Police constable can enforce laws within the City of Toronto. A police officer is a police officer anywhere in Ontario. That much is obvious. The point I was trying to make is that in areas where there are local cops, the OPP don't have the staff or resources to do general policing, and stick to their official tasks as part of the Highway Safety Division. Not only that, but the locals get REAL REAL pissed off when the OPP start doing "their job" on "their turf."
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:11:01 EDT

51019512 :

said by Snickerdo :

Thank goodness the OPP aren't allowed to be anything more than glorified traffic nazis throughout the civilized parts of Ontario.

OPP can enforce the laws anyplace in Ontario. They could be downtown Toronto and arrest you.

It's a old myth that the OPP can't do anything within the limits of a city that has there own force.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:07:51 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by shaner :

I see this as another tool to use when they stumble upon a gaggle of goofs who are up to no good.

My thoughts exactly. Maybe some charges for the irresponsible loser parents.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:03:40 EDT

shaner : I don't get what the fuss is about. If you're under 16, you really shouldn't be out and about after midnight. And somehow I don't think there's going to be a dragnet of cops hitting the street at 12:01 AM rounding up every kid they see. I see this as another tool to use when they stumble upon a gaggle of goofs who are up to no good.

Just yesterday, an abandoned McDonalds in Edmonton was set on fire in the middle of the night causing $800k in damage. The suspects? 2 nine year old boys who "are known to police". It's these type of associations and gatherings of stupidity that this law will target. I don't see the gestapo running and breaking up a bush party in Drumbo. Because they could already do that, and generally don't.

Jeez, even ol' Irv always said it best. "It's eleven o'clock. Do you know where your children are?"
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:49:56 EDT

Its a Secret : Then why the big announcement? That strikes me as odd. Besides, past precedence has been set by lack of enforcement in the past. This will go nowhere in court with a lawyer.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:39:59 EDT

digitalfutur : Exactly. The police are simply enforcing a law that's been on the books for years. If anyone has a problem with that, have the law changed or repealed.
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. "Walk the Talk".

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:18:32 EDT

jeffster1970 :

said by Devanchya :

Wow! what a concept...

Forcing Children under 16 years of age to be AT Home after midnight... and in SUMMER.

Geeze, can i use this law please. We had a house party down the road 2 days ago with the kids going everywhere... to bad some of them were obviously over 16.

I actually APPLAUD, and WELCOME this law's enforcement.

I for sure see you point, however, it got me thinking of when I was 16 years old and being out fairly late with my buddies - usually at Christmas time, spring (winter) break and, of course summer. We would be out late, maybe not till 2 or 3 am, but it was for sure beyond 12 midnight. And I wasn't one of those shyte disturbers either. The rents always knew where I was, so I had that 'trust'.

I think the law is a little crazy though...
--
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:01:46 EDT

elwoodblues : No I meant I went looking for a Video or MP3 I know the album VERY VERY WELL.

I still have the original Rolling paper that came with the LP
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:54:00 EDT

Its a Secret : »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bambu

Side 2, Track 2a. ;)

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:47:34 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by Its a Secret :

Gawd, this reminds me of the Cheech and Chong skit on Big Bamboo(?)... :D

Show me ze papers, old man...

I went googling for it, but I couldn't find it...

LOL
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:45:44 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by Snickerdo :

...as if you did something wrong. Gotcha. Excellent lesson to teach them.

but they have done something wrong...children 16 and under are not supposed to be out unsupervised after midnight.

Fantino didn't create the law...besides, with the amount of youth crime lately, i think it's best that parents keep better control on their kids...as i said, there really is no reason for them to be out past midnight unless they want to cause trouble.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:30:06 EDT

Its a Secret : Gawd, this reminds me of the Cheech and Chong skit on Big Bamboo(?)... :D

Show me ze papers, old man...

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:26:13 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by Snickerdo :

Right. So we'll teach them that even if you're good, stay out of trouble and don't cause a fuss for your parents or the cops, we'll still round you up and haul you off as if you did something wrong. Gotcha. Excellent lesson to teach them.

If they were good little kiddies then they won't be out after 12 to cause a fuss or trouble.

But he, I live in a small town.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what they could be up to after 12 unsupervised that is appropriate conduct for their age..

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:25:49 EDT

Its a Secret :

said by Mashiki :

Besides, if we're gonna go that route, why not just slap them into summer work ~~programs~~ stalags instead. Make them pay for the schooling.

Fixed it for ya... :D
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:22:51 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Mashiki :

said by Wolfie00 :

There was a "cause and causality thing" that used to cause a lot of crimes in the southern U.S. to result in blacks being lynched from the nearest tree.

It's not even necessary to invoke Godwin's Law to demonstrate blatant infringement of human rights.

That's a cute strawman. S1. of the charter says...

And I'm not even going to quote it, but let us remember how the common law has developed here and what the definition and restrictions on some 'rights' can apply to those under 18 if deemed reasonable by the courts and law. This is one of those cases.

Aww. come on, quote it! :D

Does it help?

You know, my first reaction on seeing this topic was that it was about the inherent safety issues about young kids being out late at night. Wrong, of course!! SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino had something else in mind entirely -- the security of the Reich!

There is a reason we have a judicial system. It's to provide a balanced interpretation of law in varying circumstances. The statutes as written are just words -- and subject to the kinds of abuses of law inflicted on the population by zealots like Fantino. It just take a great amount of money and effort to bring it before appellate courts.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:20:16 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by peterboro1 :

No. We will teach them this.
"enforcing the Child and Family Services Act, which states that children 16 years old or under must be supervised by someone 18 years old or over"

Right. So we'll teach them that even if you're good, stay out of trouble and don't cause a fuss for your parents or the cops, we'll still round you up and haul you off as if you did something wrong. Gotcha. Excellent lesson to teach them.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:13:28 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by peterboro1 :

said by Snickerdo :

said by Mashiki :

You mean "Held accountable to ones own actions"?

No. We will teach them this.

"enforcing the Child and Family Services Act, which states that children 16 years old or under must be supervised by someone 18 years old or over"

OH yeah, OK once again Hands up, how many of you were "supervised" by an adult at the age of 16.

Gheez!
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:12:20 EDT

elwoodblues : So one kid allegedly is an arsonist. So SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino decides that all kids are arsonists and they should be locked up at night by enforcing a law that is seldom enforced.

I think I get it just fine.

So for example, Devenchya (sorry I know it's spelt wrong, but I can't scroll that far back) was a good kid, and JUST happened to be out after midnight, so now he's a bad kid, his parents have to called down to the police station for a stern lecture on keeping tabs on your kids.

I'd love to spend a few hours going through all the stupid laws that have been passed over the years and aren't really enforced but are on the books, and can used when some cop with political aspirations decides to make some noise.

I'd like to see the stats in a couple of months time, on how many kids were picked up, what the crime rate is (kids vs adults), since the OPP is now focused on picking up 16yr old kids wandering the streets at night and ignoring rapists, drunk drivers and and murderers.
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:08:15 EDT

peterboro1 :

said by Snickerdo :

said by Mashiki :

You mean "Held accountable to ones own actions"?

No. We will teach them this.

"enforcing the Child and Family Services Act, which states that children 16 years old or under must be supervised by someone 18 years old or over"

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:06:06 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by Mashiki :

You mean "Held accountable to ones own actions"?

Yeah, what a great lesson to teach young and impressionable teenagers - the cops can round you up for no reason at all, without warrant or charge, and haul you off. Yeah, great lesson about being responsible for one's actions, eh?

:huh:
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:03:34 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by elwoodblues :

You gotta remember you are dealing with CONS, they belive that children should be seen and not heard.

Women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Civil liberties? Thats for pinkos and commies.

You know that term.. "Family Values"

oh brother. :uhh:

i won't even bother to respond to this because you clearly don't get it.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:01:46 EDT

Mashiki :

said by elwoodblues :

You gotta remember you are dealing with CONS, they belive that children should be seen and not heard.

Civil liberties? Thats for pinkos and commies.

What? You mean "Held accountable to ones own actions"? Or "Civil application of law as just and reasonable", or perhaps we can go with "do whatever you want, as long as you're not breaking societies laws"
etc, etc, etc and so on.

Scary thought, people requiring to be held accountable if they do something bad. Would giving them a warm cup of cocoa and a blanket be better? :D

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:52:27 EDT

Mashiki :

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:51:56 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by elwoodblues :

You gotta remember you are dealing with CONS, they belive that children should be seen and not heard.
Civil liberties? Thats for pinkos and commies.

Please, don't paint us all with the same brush. Some of us Conservatives believe very strongly in civil liberties, and actually caused some chaos and mayhem when we were younger and don't act like we have sticks up our asses as adults.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:49:33 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Mashiki :

said by elwoodblues :

OH I see... so one 15yr old kid is suspect of creating a fire, and is NOT suspected of the other 20.

However since he is 15 and caused a fire, all the other fires must have been caused by kids and thus SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino can have them locked up at night in their beds

Actually yes. That's the whole "cause and causality" thing.

There was a "cause and causality thing" that used to cause a lot of crimes in the southern U.S. to result in blacks being lynched from the nearest tree.

It's not even necessary to invoke Godwin's Law to demonstrate blatant infringement of human rights.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:48:49 EDT

elwoodblues : You gotta remember you are dealing with CONS, they belive that children should be seen and not heard.

Women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Civil liberties? Thats for pinkos and commies.

You know that term.. "Family Values"
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:46:16 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by dirtyjeffer :

there really is no reason for most "kids" under 16 to be out after midnight, unless they are causing trouble.

Guess what? If they need a "reason", then it's no longer a free society. Simple enough for you?
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:39:51 EDT

Mashiki :

Actually yes. That's the whole "cause and causality" thing.

Take one dose of repeated fire, add in kids out of school. Take teenager getting caught and... that one shit rat ruining the fun for everyone else.

I'll just hazard a guess that there was a memo from the Ont. Gov to the OACP saying: "Enforce the law. That's your job." After the recent shit in London, Middlesex and so on. If you don't think there hasn't been a summer jump in youth crime you haven't been paying attention.

edit:
The scary thing is, it's only been a few weeks since most have been out of school.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:39:34 EDT

dirtyjeffer :

said by elwoodblues :

This is coming from a guy who has Nelson Muntz has his screen names picture.

exactly...which means i know what i am talking about. ;)
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:38:44 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by dirtyjeffer :

i don't know what all the fuss over this is...heaven forbid the police is enforcing laws at their disposal...besides, there really is no reason for most "kids" under 16 to be out after midnight, unless they are causing trouble.

This is coming from a guy who has Nelson Muntz has his screen names picture.
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:35:43 EDT

dirtyjeffer : i don't know what all the fuss over this is...heaven forbid the police enforce the law...besides, there really is no reason for most "kids" under 16 to be out after midnight, unless they are causing trouble.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:34:56 EDT

elwoodblues : Obviously you were a good little kid.

At any given time during the summer, there would be group (but in SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino terms a GANG) of kids hanging out, and boozing it up (OMG liquored up teenage boys lock up your daughters) or whatnot.

Were we shit disturbers, you bet, what teenager isn't? But at the same time, I was probably less then a quarter of a mile from home and less via the backyard route.

I would like SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino to enforce the Safe Streets Act and get the bloody panhandlers off the street.

(I really need to take the time to proof read before hitting post now!)

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:33:41 EDT

Mashiki : Ahahaha. I think a ghost of election past would be better but that's me. Besides, if we're gonna go that route, why not just slap them into summer work programs instead. Make them pay for the schooling. :D

Might be an amusing picture, but maybe we can get Dalton would be the better choice if you're going that route.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:32:05 EDT

elwoodblues :

said by Mashiki :

20 fires in the last month however is.

OH I see... so one 15yr old kid is suspect of creating a fire, and is NOT suspected of the other 20.

However since he is 15 and caused a fire, all the other fires must have been caused by kids and thus SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino can have them locked up at night in their beds
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:28:48 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Mashiki :

Crime spikes when school gets out mean that you can pretty easily point to the issues at hand and can deal with them when you've got the tools.

The "tool" in this case being Fantino! :D Or more precisely, the concept of incarcerating all students when school gets out, until they can be escorted back to their secure classrooms when September rolls around!

said by Mashiki :

We got rid of the war measures act. ;) But I'm sure we can prop up Trudeau on the back of a train and have him flip off some more Canadians.

No need. You can have a real, live SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino give the classic salute that I believe was first made famous in Munich about 75 years ago.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:25:30 EDT

Mark Z : I know many would disagree but those unelected Senators and Judges are looking more attractive to me by the day. At the very least they are not beholden to the absurdity of polls and the vagarities of the populace. One thing is for sure, McDalton and his nannyist tendencies won't kick up much of a fuss.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Fantino made a run at Provincial politics, and he'd probably get elected to boot.
--
-A nation of sheep shall be ruled by pigs.
-If I give up all my freedom, then I'll be safe.
-I'm having trouble keeping up with all the things I'm supposed to be afraid of.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:17:47 EDT

Mashiki : Generally causality, and crime occurrences go hand in hand. Crime spikes when school gets out mean that you can pretty easily point to the issues at hand and can deal with them when you've got the tools.

We got rid of the war measures act. ;) But I'm sure we can prop up Trudeau on the back of a train and have him flip off some more Canadians.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:17:19 EDT

Snickerdo :

said by Wolfie00 :

And bring on martial law! I remember when the War Measures Act was declared by Trudeau and army tanks were rolling through the streets of Montreal, the rate of common crime fell to almost zero. Imagine that!

To hell with civil liberties, who needs those anyway!
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:13:30 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Mashiki :

Annnndd...this is why they're going to be enforcing it.

quote:
A 15-year-old young offender is charged with arson after a suspicious fire at a London school on Monday.

So there has never been an arson committed by anyone over 16 late at night?

I'd say it's time to enforce midnight-to-6 curfews for everyone. :p

And bring on martial law! I remember when the War Measures Act was declared by Trudeau and army tanks were rolling through the streets of Montreal, the rate of common crime fell to almost zero. Imagine that!
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:08:09 EDT

Mashiki : 20 fires in the last month however is.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:03:32 EDT

Snickerdo : Kids running around setting schools on fire isn't exactly anything new.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:01:35 EDT

Mashiki : Annnndd...this is why they're going to be enforcing it.

quote:
A 15-year-old young offender is charged with arson after a suspicious fire at a London school on Monday.

Not to mention the 20 others, and the problems in St.Thomas, and Ingersoll, and so on.

»lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/···576.html

Because shitrats are out causing trouble. London/Middlesex has been having a hell of a time this year with teenagers causing problems.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:50:52 EDT

nitzguy : I can't see "Greater Sudbury Police" enforcing this...sheesh they're the laziest police force in Ontario :).

I'd say the same thing, but you know, we did stupid things...like running around and crap, we didn't break into cars or do drugs or anything like that, I guess we were naieve...my parents always knew where I was.

It wasn't a secret, I was open with them, they were open with me...it was win-win-win. I think the trust has disappeared for whatever reason...I hope with my child we can be as open...

But yeah, like I said, its been on the books, but usually only gets enforced if kids are up to trouble.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:33:42 EDT

Snickerdo : Thank goodness the OPP aren't allowed to be anything more than glorified traffic nazis throughout the civilized parts of Ontario.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:33:29 EDT

Mark Z : I'm sure McDalton was flapping his flippers wholeheartedly. Gawd I despise them both viscerally.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:22:31 EDT

BryceS : Throughout highschool in the summers I would end up at home anywhere from 10pm to 6am to not even coming home that night.

If my parents wanted to know where I was they could just call me.
--
My employer is in no way responsible for my views/suggestions/posts made in this forum.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:59:40 EDT

Wolfie00 :

said by Devanchya :

Geeze, can i use this law please. We had a house party down the road 2 days ago with the kids going everywhere... to bad some of them were obviously over 16.

Don't worry, SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino will soon lobby for a new law where "under 16" becomes "everybody", and house parties will become illegal in case the party-goers might be conspiring a putsch to overthrow the regime. :p

I just hope the SS-Obergruppenfuhrer's thugs don't taser or shoot those kids when they're on their way into "custody".

BTW, parties are allowed in a free society, but unreasonable noise late at night is not. This is another example of muddled values, because problems like that can be dealt with through existing laws, and I for one greatly value the privilege of living in a free society. Or at least it was, pre-Fantino.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:50:06 EDT

Devanchya : I was 90% of the time. When I wasn't, I was near, or my parents knew where I was.

For the 5% of the other time, I was doing something stupid and should have been at home.

You know how many 12 year olds, and 15 year olds are out around my neigborhood at night? Enough to make you wonder if it's 3am or 3pm...
--
»www.codecipher.com - Marking the way to tomorrow's solutions -- Did you know that Perl is not Dead? »perlisalive.org/

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:41:24 EDT

elwoodblues : Lets turn this around for a second...

Not knowing the age of anyone here.. hands up how many of you were snuggled safe in your beds at midnight in the middle of summer?

I sure has hell wasn't. Now I did sneak out more then my share of times, so it wasn't with the blessing of my folks.
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:36:35 EDT

Devanchya : Wow! what a concept...

Forcing Children under 16 years of age to be AT Home after midnight... and in SUMMER.

Geeze, can i use this law please. We had a house party down the road 2 days ago with the kids going everywhere... to bad some of them were obviously over 16.

I actually APPLAUD, and WELCOME this law's enforcement.
--
»www.codecipher.com - Marking the way to tomorrow's solutions -- Did you know that Perl is not Dead? »perlisalive.org/

Re: Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:22:59 EDT

elwoodblues : This man is out of control.. he reminds me of the politics of a certain Italian dictator during the 2nd world war.

I think he just likes to see his name in print.

Show Us Your Papers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:18:56 EDT

digitalfutur : He's at it again ! Fantino and his OPP are now going to enforce a law regarding kids under 16 out after midnight.

quote:
Police are now warning parents that they will be enforcing the Child and Family Services Act, which states that children 16 years old or under must be supervised by someone 18 years old or over, preferably a parent, when they are out between midnight and 6 a.m. Otherwise, police said, they will apprehend the child without a warrant.

When a child is apprehended, the parents will be contacted and be required to pick them up.

»www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/660668

What a concept !
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. "Walk the Talk".