Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12 (Post 3673257)

Unreal, so because the police did something wrong that erases the death of a person. So that changes the fact he killed somebody? Discussing. Judges need to start having it happen to their familes, then it would be different.

Originally Posted by whiteout (Post 3673297)

The evidence gleaned from an interrogation where his Charter rights were breached was tossed. If the Crown had any other evidence, they were more than able to continue with the case. Since they apparently had none, the Crown withdrew the charges. It’s the correct call on the judge’s part, unless you support allowing the police to violate the Charter while they investigate things?

This lies solely on the shoulders of the two officers who continued to interrogate him when they should have known better.

Originally Posted by ryeguy21 (Post 3673341)

not sure how ones anger isnt directed at the idiot police who should know about their suspects rights.

Why one would defend charter rights violations against any canadian is beyond me.

Originally Posted by ryeguy21 (Post 3673341)

not sure how ones anger isnt directed at the idiot police who should know about their suspects rights.

Why one would defend charter rights violations against any canadian is beyond me.

Originally Posted by tacomama (Post 3673173)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ayed-1.4414352
Charges have been dropped against a Calgary man accused in a fatal hit and run after the judge ruled police behaved improperly during their interrogation of the suspect. Robert Mark Varley, 60, was on trial for a hit and run resulting in the death of Farida Abdurahman, 33...............Varley was charged with impaired driving in 2003, 2004 and 2009 in Richmond, B.C. He pleaded guilty to the lesser, traffic offence of careless driving for the 2003 and 2009 infractions and was acquitted of the 2004 charge.What a P.O.S. lowlife.... and he goes free, again!

Originally Posted by densa44 (Post 3673358)

I'd be less uneasy about this had the victim not been an Ethiopian immigrant.

Can the police not establish that it was his car that hit and killed the woman, and then establish that he was driving it at the time of her death?

I think that they should take this back to court.

Originally Posted by whiteout (Post 3673297)

The evidence gleaned from an interrogation where his Charter rights were breached was tossed. If the Crown had any other evidence, they were more than able to continue with the case. Since they apparently had none, the Crown withdrew the charges. It’s the correct call on the judge’s part, unless you support allowing the police to violate the Charter while they investigate things?

This lies solely on the shoulders of the two officers who continued to interrogate him when they should have known better.

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12 (Post 3673393)

To me his rights should be stripped after what he did, to me he gave them up when he ran the guy over, but that's this crazy world we live in. It does not change the fact he killed somebody. I wish laws were different, but that's just crazy me.

Originally Posted by whiteout (Post 3673422)

So the second someone comes under police investigation, you would support the immediate suspension of their Charter rights?

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12 (Post 3673452)

What does this meen then, he is innocent of the crime then? Just because the police screw up he didn't kill anyone then?

Originally Posted by silverdoctor (Post 3673463)

Just because you're wearing a badge, doesn't give an officer the right to breach a persons rights - remember, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

This is not a one off, this happens all too often. Again, we should have the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, it would take care of much.

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12 (Post 3673471)

That's true, but how does this change the crime committed? The person is still in the ground right, this is not his first offence and killed a person. So nothing happens now? Innocent until proven guilty.... So he isn't guilty of the crime? Who killed the person in the hit and run then, Casper the ghost? Once again the criminal has more rights than the victim.

Originally Posted by silverdoctor (Post 3673487)

From what I understand, and don't quote me, the charges were stayed. I dare say at some point, he'll be charged with something else, and this will be brought back up within a year.

But, maybe not.

Originally Posted by silverdoctor (Post 3673374)

And this folks is why we need Miranda rights in Canada.

Sorry, but when police are given total authority over an interrogation, and the accused doesn't have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning - this can the result.

I don't like it either, another arsehole walks but it's the cops' fault. If they are allowed to get away with this, then there are no checks and balances to speak of.

Originally Posted by drhu22 (Post 3673359)

Police corruption has never happened, we dont need safeguards against that (sarcasm). Ask yourself... have you researched/studied the particulars of the case, or are you reacting to a headline?

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12 (Post 3673393)

To me his rights should be stripped after what he did, to me he gave them up when he ran the guy over, but that's this crazy world we live in. It does not change the fact he killed somebody. I wish laws were different, but that's just crazy me.

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12 (Post 3673452)

What does this meen then, he is innocent of the crime then? Just because the police screw up he didn't kill anyone then?

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12 (Post 3673471)

That's true, but how does this change the crime committed? The person is still in the ground right, this is not his first offence and killed a person. So nothing happens now? Innocent until proven guilty.... So he isn't guilty of the crime? Who killed the person in the hit and run then, Casper the ghost? Once again the criminal has more rights than the victim.

Originally Posted by tacomama (Post 3673582)

According to the news, this lowlife actually killed another human, are you forgetting that part?
I am not defending the cops that screwed up here, it is really too bad they did, but looking at what this guy did changes things a bit wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by tacomama (Post 3673582)

It was a hit and run and the evidence pointed to him and his track record doesn't exactly show he is an upstanding citizen...
Yes I am only reading the article and reacting to it.
Everyone should have their rights, I agree with this, but to see this guy get away with this due to basically a technicality makes me sick. Yes the cops should have handled it differently but it doesn't change what he did.

Originally Posted by Stustage (Post 3673972)

I REALLY hope you are never the victim of wrong place wrong time and get accused of a similar crime and have people treat you the way you are wanting this person to be treated, getting all your rights "stripped away" for allegedly committing a crime.



yeah you are innocent until PROVEN guilty the cops cant just accuse you of a crime and lock you up and throw away the key, or better yet hang you for it.



the argument isn't weather or not the person was killed, obviously they are dead, the point is it can not be said conclusively that this "POS" did it, no matter how much of a POS they are. Any admitting of guilt he may or may not have made is irrelevant because the POS leos violated his rights, pure and simple



No, not at all. My condolences to the families of his victims but you know what we have rights in this country and its that simple, if a cop violates my rights any evidence that comes from that is "of the poison fruit" and needs to be tossed. NOT TO MENTION he was acquitted of past crimes (or were reduced) which means the media triggered you with their sensationalism as they get paid to do.




ok here is a scenario for you: cold winter day an (insert ethnic origin here) male was jogging down the street wearing a balaclava, all of a sudden he is taken down by the swat team beaten and arrested for a rape that happened 2 blocks away, "all the evidence pointed to him" and as a kid he was trouble with the law for different things so his track record doesn't show he is and upstanding citizen, so should the cops violate him for raping the person? i mean the person was raped how disgusting.......... get my point.