Opening door to cops?

[offthehook]

Cheerios back at ya Dudesome, Maybe motivating people is all were my posts are about, so I'm glad it arrived.

Good on ya !

If it goes good for you, it 'll go good for me too. TY.

 

[nukkumatti]

600grams is aggravated drug crime atm. So you get at least probation. You get the probation from very nuch smaller cases too. So be careful man.

Or just don't give a fuck!! hahaaa that's what I do!

 

[hup234]

sounds bad in northern europe,i hope the women make up for it.

 

[prowler]

600grams is aggravated drug crime atm. So you get at least probation. You get the probation from very nuch smaller cases too. So be careful man.

Or just don't give a fuck!! hahaaa that's what I do!

Heard several cases with over a kilo without hard time. But probation indeed. Better to just f*cking overgrow!!!

 

[Lion of Judah]

It should be noted that under the current legislation, ANY search of a domicile conducted by Finnish law enforcement authorities constitutes a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is possible to obtain compensation (usually around 5000-6000€) by complaining directly to the European Court of Human Rights.

The issue is that the police (and occasionally other authorities, namely Customs and Border Control) have infinite discretion with regard to search warrants, which they issue to themselves with minimal criteria or form requirements, and there is no judicial supervision at any point. The ECHR has criticized Finland for a lack of legal safeguards - in the form of either judges issuing search warrants, or the opportunity to challenge the legality of a search retroactively - and decided that the procedure in itself violates the Convention.

The Parliament is currently deciding on changes to the Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki), but I'm not sure with what kind of urgency. They intend to introduce retroactive judicial review for search warrants, but as it stands, there is no opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of a search, and thus compensation can be obtained for any search, regardless of actual criminal activity.

 

[Dudesome]

Lion of Judah thanks alot for such an interesting information!!!

5k-6k you say?? Hell welcome to my garden, dear po-po

 

[Lion of Judah]

It may be stuck in the cogs of bureaucracy for a year or two before the decision, but I also agree that 5-6k is quite a nice reward for having the 5-0 over for a cup of coffee.

The general rule is that you have 6 months from the violation of your rights to file a case. So if the police have been to your house within the last half-year, file suit!

 

[Dudesome]

Very nice to know in any case makes me more positive about the worst of outcomes haha

 

[Kriminaal1]

Kikkoman, Teddy, and everyone else Thanks alot!

one last question. Say they find my 1 scrog bush that is about to yield 250-700g. Do you think it can be categorized as personal consumption kind of bush in this country?
Which it is btw. I am a heavy toker after all =P

EDIT:
Whoops i didnt noticed page 2 where was answer for you, my bad. But at least it was my first post haha.

EDIT2:
One my friend said that if you got under 10 plants , you just got only fines.

 

[prowler]

Have to say this out loud to you all:

Finnish police uses this technique quite often to obtain more permissions to conduct investigations. When they investigate someone (falsely) with a felony (rikosnimike, törkeä) they can hook an extended wire tap, raid the subjects friends/family houses and so on - without any consequence. This is a common procedure amongst finnish police.

All it takes is for them to claim that someone has conducted a felony and voila doors are open for them.

What i'm telling you: No calls to friends who might be tagged. Go and see your friends always in living person.

 

[Dudesome]

prowler excelent advice! respect

 

[offthehook]

Yeh, like what prowler said, I totally recognise this!

And to Lion of judah, WOW! and thanks for posting. Glad I skipped one page back to notice your Verry importend info.

I always knew that something was good wrong here and now I got something to research.

A thousend times Thanks man!

Also BT's post on page 2 was indeed verry well written and recogniseble. Thanks mate.

 

[offthehook]

The European Convention on Human Rights


Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

SECTION I

ARTICLE 2

Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
ARTICLE 3

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

ARTICLE 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
For the purpose of this article the term forced or compulsory labour' shall not include:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognized, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
ARTICLE 5

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him.
Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
ARTICLE 6

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
ARTICLE 7

No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.
ARTICLE 8

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

________________________________________________________________________

Hmm, Looks like that because of the exeptions they seem to have all rights to do it.

Interesting would be to see the part where the "self supervising thingy" is beeing scrutinised.

 

[offthehook]

quote: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. end quote.

Pff, that's a funny one. Some 100 kg cop came in my bed while I was naked, jumped flat out on my chest and grabbed the cellphone out of my hand while I was trying to keep him off.

My Lawyer said there was nothing to complain about, standard procedure, nothing to see here. Damn! Can't help but feeling a little degraded tho
______________________________________________________________________________

quote: Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.end quote.

That's also total BS.

In finland You will be just as guilty as that the court believes you to be.

It's a total believing matter and what they want to believe is beeing counted as proof, hence, 99% of all appeals to supreme court are beeing denied anyways. (strength @ Timo Haara in this context, hes beeing jailed now.)

Hearsay in finnish courts already counts as proof. Watch your snitches! lol. pff.

They will believe a snitch over anything else.

 

[baittis]

Yup, pretty funny how they can get away with shit that could get you in jail.

Me, I'm lucky. Haven't had any beating myself, but seen a lot.

Scary, that even them almost-police gentlemen - who work under the name of Securitas, G4S and last, but not least Turvatiimi - seem to have that same kind of "privilege". Hmph. Rotten.

 

[offthehook]

pssh, I have got some verry nasty fantasies after that, but I don't tell cuzz I don't wanna give anyone bad ideas.

I mean one Breivik is already enough, but at least do I understand now how they got someone THAT crazy.

Wasn't it einstein who once said that every action will lead to an opposite reaction?

I wished that also cops could understand this universal truth and only interfere with us as little as is strictly neccesary.

And yess baittis, cops are crossing the line everyday but I'm the last one to call for violence myself.

Things will sort itself out on the long run I hope.

 

[Lion of Judah]

It should be noted that under the current legislation, ANY search of a domicile conducted by Finnish law enforcement authorities constitutes a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is possible to obtain compensation (usually around 5000-6000€) by complaining directly to the European Court of Human Rights.

The issue is that the police (and occasionally other authorities, namely Customs and Border Control) have infinite discretion with regard to search warrants, which they issue to themselves with minimal criteria or form requirements, and there is no judicial supervision at any point. The ECHR has criticized Finland for a lack of legal safeguards - in the form of either judges issuing search warrants, or the opportunity to challenge the legality of a search retroactively - and decided that the procedure in itself violates the Convention.

The Parliament is currently deciding on changes to the Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki), but I'm not sure with what kind of urgency. They intend to introduce retroactive judicial review for search warrants, but as it stands, there is no opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of a search, and thus compensation can be obtained for any search, regardless of actual criminal activity.

The above no longer applies.

As of the 1 August 2011, the Coercive Measures Act allows for posterior judicial review of the legality of searches - that is, AFTER your domicile has been searched you may take it up with the courts to see whether or not it was justified.

It's disguised as an improvement in people's rights - if the investigation is carried out afterwards, the police can fabricate all kinds of bullshit to justify why they entered someone's home. I find it unlikely that many cases will find any fault in the conduct of the police and their justifications for entering a home. All we can do is file suit based on every single search, and hope it overcrowds the court system.

 

[offthehook]

Thanks for this ALSO verry importend add-on Lion.

So back to the original plan again, hm hm > To ignore and outsmart.

And here I go again on my own, going down the only road I've ever known. ( 8O 's song by White Snake)

 

[kutittaa]

--
Wasn't it einstein who once said that every action will lead to an opposite reaction?
--

*OFFTOPIC* It was Newton *OFFTOPIC*

 

[offthehook]

Thanks for correcting me mate, and the original line was something like: For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction, Right?

Well, I 've been thinking a lot about this line and maybe on topics like chemistry and fysics it might work to some extend, but certainly not on matters like sociology tho.
If that line were to be universally applied, It 'd appear to be real faulty imo.

It's easy to understand why: If this were so, then no "good" could exist without it's "evil" counterpart deeming "good" to disapear out of existence for times eternally. > Busted, lol.

Verry ON-topic as a matter of fact. > It 'll give us a reason to resist when cops try invading our homes.