And I can say with certainty that you do not train U.S. law enforcement officers about the United States Constitution and our court's interpretations of that highest law of our land, and the protections it affords U.S. citizens against law enforcement officers intruding into our lives as we travel in public places!

and your point is...

Do you really think the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are that much different? Have a look, both are available online.

Not sure what I did to put a bee in your bonnet. Maybe it's just the fact I'm a cop, or Canadian, or both.

Current exchange rate on 2 Canadian Cents is 1.7064 US cents.

Depends on if you're buying or selling.
;)

The comments on your first post on this thread demonstrated that you do not understand U.S. law about public property and the limitations of police action when dealing with the public.

I realize Canada is much further along on the road to full "police state" status than we are here in the U.S., but we don't need your misinformation to help us get there any faster.

Yes, I am taking at face-value that "billwagnon's" post is an accurate description of the events as they occurred, but unless what occurred was extremely different than what was described, the officers were completely out-of-line in threatening to arrest the man for "trespassing" if he returns to the area.

Their action of even stopping him is questionable too. If they did have some cause to stop him, based upon the statements made to them by the residents, after verifying his ID, they should have explained that some parents were concerned when the children mentioned that a man was in the woods, then the officers should have apologized for stopping him during his exercise routine.

I don't have problems with police officers per se, I do have problems with officers who do not understand that they work for people like me -- the law-abiding citizens in the community. Police officers are public servants. Your comments indicated you see them as having authority over the public; it is in fact the other way around; the law-abiding public has authority over the officers!

But does an individual have authority over the officers? I think not.

A police officer has no authority to interfere with an individual unless he has "reasonable suspicion" that that individual is engaged in wrong-doing.

And yes, an individual does have authority over an officer. If I call 911 and say I need the assistance of a police officer because someone is breaking into my home, and for some reason the officer who is given the call decides that he doesn't want to bother responding, he will be in trouble. He has taken an oath to serve the public -- that will involve responding to the authority of individual law-abiding citizen's requests for action.

B M A

I give up. What does "B M A" mean?

Competentone;

Thanks for clarifying things for me now.

Your post lacks corroboration and credibility. All you've demonstrated is your ignorance and contempt for authority. It's a shame, but there will always be people like you out there. That's why there will always be people like me.

Tell you what, next time you deal with the police, let them know they work for you, that they're your servant cause you pay their salary. They may just give you back the tenth of a cent that your taxes gave them. Then we'll see how things go from there.

Show us the Statutes you are referring to which would contradict the information I provided.

Simply put;
Put up or shut up.

I have a real big problem with you statement:

"A police officer is an agent of the municipality, county or state, whichever it may be, and therefore acts on behalf of that entity thereby having power over such restrictions. Failing to leave, or returning on property, even public, once an agent or owner has forbidden such an act is trespassing."

In this case, I feel it is utter bullcrap an officer, as an "agent," has power over restrictions without some reasonable cause. Scaring parents hardly meets reasonable cause, in my opinion. If what you say is true, I have lost a lot of respect for law enforcement and those who empower them. Has justice evolved into who complains the loudest?

As I said before, if bill is banned, all users should be banned. Parents won't have to worry about predators when their kids are leashed within their own backyards, perhaps.

Never said they could do so without reason. In fact, if you review my posts, I have stated exactly the opposite.

Only that their position relative to the local government allows them to act in such a capacity. Any officer who does so simply because they're on a power trip and without cause is acting improperly.

Also, we must always remember that there is a big difference between arrestable/chargeable offences and likelihood of conviction once the facts come out.

So basically the cops were wrong, in this instance.

The honest answer is, neither you nor I can say. We weren't there and don't know what information they were told and acting on. There's no way any one of us can definitively say whether they were justified or not. Even Bill, who was there, can't say whether they were right or wrong in their actions, until he can determine exactly what info they based their actions on.

He can say however whether they were right or wrong based on the information he knows of what actually happened.

BUT, the test put to their actions is (both in Canadian and US courts) had the information they were acting upon been correct, would they have been justified in taking the action they had.

Analogous to the following;

Citizen calls police says there is a white male on the corner of X and Y streets with a gun, wearing a black winter coat and a red call cap. The police show up and find Bill on the corner wearing the same clothes but he has just arrived there. They take him down at gunpoint as per procedure and once the complainant tells them he is not the same guy, they let him go.

Since we know it wasn't Bill, we can say the officers were wrong. BUT, we test their actions and can determine that based on the information they were given, their actions were proper and in good faith, therefore there would be no finding of fault on their part, although in essence, Bill was still wronged.

Bill's main point was the seeking of advice on next steps to take. That has been addressed with numerous suggestions and he has chosen his path. The discussion has turned now to the officers' actions with differing views on their conduct.

I still remain on the fence, as I have learned through experience that you cannot, and should not pass judgement without knowing the facts, and give the benefit of the doubt to all persons until the facts overwhelmingly determine otherwise. This is akin to the theory of innocence until proven guilty.

In my experience, there are always 3 sides to every story. One, the other and then somewhere in between is the absolute truth.

OK I am comfortable with, even supportive of, Bill being approached and questioned professionally and courteously by the officers. Especially given that kids were involved. But I am not comfortable with the on the spot banning and the threat of arrest. I suspect that banning would not be enforcable in court .

+1 to Flatbutt1's comments. The judge, jury, convicted theme is overbearing.

Please elaborate: how much further along, and with respect to what?

So you're saying you don't agree with letting the courts determine guilt?

Just about what I would expect from a police officer in a socialist country.

Yes, I do have contempt for people, police officers or not, who believe they have "authority" over other people.

You see, I am a free man; other people are also free; we live in a society where we (are supposed to) respect the freedom of each other. We do not deal with one another in terms of "authority vs. subservient."

In the U.S., the people are sovereign, government officials only have power because the people give them that power.

Yes, there are freedom-loving people like me still in this world; yes there are people like you who want to destroy freedom. It's not a new conflict.