| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Roxie
Plaid Jacket Champion
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 6930
Location: Dog River
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Thumber wrote: | | GHow will the cards work at the CC? Will it be mixed bag ams and pros in the first round and then segregated? |
Pros and Ams will not be mixed as per PDGA rules.
_________________
If you can't win the event in regulation, try, try, try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rolly
King of Commentary
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9834
Location: South East Division
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thumber wrote: | | gatineau police are ramping up an aggressive RIDE program starting this week and carrying through the weekend |
Rolly's, the more you Know...
Did you know being stopped in a RIDE program violates your constitutional rights as a Canadian?
The More you know....
Now, Back to you regularily underailed posts...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ottawa_adam
Deliverer of Democracy
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 954
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rolly wrote: | | Thumber wrote: | | gatineau police are ramping up an aggressive RIDE program starting this week and carrying through the weekend |
Rolly's, the more you Know...
Did you know being stopped in a RIDE program violates your constitutional rights as a Canadian?
The More you know....
Now, Back to you regularily underailed posts... |
Looks like we have our resident legal expert.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roxie
Plaid Jacket Champion
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 6930
Location: Dog River
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rolly wrote: | | Thumber wrote: | | gatineau police are ramping up an aggressive RIDE program starting this week and carrying through the weekend |
Rolly's, the more you Know...
Did you know being stopped in a RIDE program violates your constitutional rights as a Canadian?
The More you know....
Now, Back to you regularily underailed posts... |
Dare you to tell them that.
_________________
If you can't win the event in regulation, try, try, try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holly D
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 4302
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is from Wiki's article on section 8 of the Charter. (Sufficient for these purposes, peruse the citations at your leisure.
| Quote: | Not every form of examination constitutes search. A search within the meaning of section eight is determined by whether the investigatory technique used by the state diminishes a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. The focus of analysis is upon the purpose of the examination. A police officer who compels someone to produce their licence would not be invasive enough to constitute a search (R. v. Ladouceur, [1990][1]). Equally, an inspection of the inside of a car is not a search, but questions about the contents of a bag would be. (R. v. Mellenthin [1992][2]) It has also been ruled that the use of a police dog as a means to gain probable cause to search is also in itself a violation of Section 8, and that other factors must be present before a police dog can be used and a search executed. (R. v. A.M. [2008],[3] R. v. Kang-Brown [2008][4])
|
Emphasis mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Eight_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
_________________
1020 rated lunch preparationist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jefrey A. Brother
King Jefrey
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Posts: 10042
Location: First tee
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It has to do with Section 9 from the Constitution.
_________________
Boyle says BOOM! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumber
LNF Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 8278
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jefrey A. Brother wrote: | | It has to do with Section 9 from the Constitution. |
Or one could not drink and drive and have nothing to worry about....just sayin
_________________
meh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Splash
Guru of Gab
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1851
Location: Natcap City
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lissyssil wrote: | Is this a "regional qualifying event"? Where did this spot in the USDGC come from?
On the USDGC site, there is a pdf that states that:
| Quote: | Competitors must meet the following requirements to qualify for the 2011 USDGC:
You must have a PDGA Player Rating of 850 or higher
At regional qualifying events you must play the exact course configuration(s) as the Open Division. Playing on the same days and/or times is not required. |
If I bring my 824 up to 850 before the USDGC, is that sufficient?
(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm REALLY bummed about this at the moment) |
Given what you've quoted and what you've signed up for, playing in Am-2 wouldn't let you win the spot either since it isn't using the same course configuration as the Open Division. C'mon up to Am-1 and you'll have a better idea of how you might have fared.
_________________
The box said 'Requires Windows XP or better'. So I installed LINUX... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holly D
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 4302
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, periods where there are more-than-usual amounts of people likely to be driving around impaired somehow falls under "arbitrarily"?
_________________
1020 rated lunch preparationist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holly D
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 4302
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holly D wrote: | | So, periods where there are more-than-usual amounts of people likely to be driving around impaired somehow falls under "arbitrarily"? |
...and the answer to that is yes.
_________________
1020 rated lunch preparationist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holly D
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 4302
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In R. v. Wilson (1990), it was found that random stops by police, authorized by statute, were in violation of section 9 but were justified as a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter. Likewise, in R. v. Ladouceur (1990) highway stops were found to be arbitrary where absolute discretion was given to the police. Again, the violation was justified under section 1.
|
_________________
1020 rated lunch preparationist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rolly
King of Commentary
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9834
Location: South East Division
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holly D wrote: | This is from Wiki's article on section 8 of the Charter. (Sufficient for these purposes, peruse the citations at your leisure.
| Quote: | Not every form of examination constitutes search. A search within the meaning of section eight is determined by whether the investigatory technique used by the state diminishes a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. The focus of analysis is upon the purpose of the examination. A police officer who compels someone to produce their licence would not be invasive enough to constitute a search (R. v. Ladouceur, [1990][1]). Equally, an inspection of the inside of a car is not a search, but questions about the contents of a bag would be. (R. v. Mellenthin [1992][2]) It has also been ruled that the use of a police dog as a means to gain probable cause to search is also in itself a violation of Section 8, and that other factors must be present before a police dog can be used and a search executed. (R. v. A.M. [2008],[3] R. v. Kang-Brown [2008][4])
|
Emphasis mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Eight_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms |
It has nothing to do with searches of the person, but stopping inocent people randomly to start an investigation with no prior reason to start an investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rolly
King of Commentary
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9834
Location: South East Division
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash wrote: | | lissyssil wrote: | Is this a "regional qualifying event"? Where did this spot in the USDGC come from?
On the USDGC site, there is a pdf that states that:
| Quote: | Competitors must meet the following requirements to qualify for the 2011 USDGC:
You must have a PDGA Player Rating of 850 or higher
At regional qualifying events you must play the exact course configuration(s) as the Open Division. Playing on the same days and/or times is not required. |
If I bring my 824 up to 850 before the USDGC, is that sufficient?
(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm REALLY bummed about this at the moment) |
Given what you've quoted and what you've signed up for, playing in Am-2 wouldn't let you win the spot either since it isn't using the same course configuration as the Open Division. C'mon up to Am-1 and you'll have a better idea of how you might have fared. |
do it do it!!!
Its the best thing to do for improving your game also!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rolly
King of Commentary
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9834
Location: South East Division
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holly D wrote: | | Quote: | In R. v. Wilson (1990), it was found that random stops by police, authorized by statute, were in violation of section 9 but were justified as a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter. Likewise, in R. v. Ladouceur (1990) highway stops were found to be arbitrary where absolute discretion was given to the police. Again, the violation was justified under section 1.
|
|
And of course the government allows itself to violate its own rules, :In the name of public safety", just like usual.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lissyssil
Champion of Chains
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 2565
Location: Aylmer, QC
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rolly wrote: | | Holly D wrote: | | Quote: | In R. v. Wilson (1990), it was found that random stops by police, authorized by statute, were in violation of section 9 but were justified as a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter. Likewise, in R. v. Ladouceur (1990) highway stops were found to be arbitrary where absolute discretion was given to the police. Again, the violation was justified under section 1.
|
|
And of course the government allows itself to violate its own rules, :In the name of public safety", just like usual.... |
Guys? A RIDE program is not a random stop. A random stop is the act of a police officer pulling over a car at random. The RIDE program pulls over ALL cars.
/nitpicking
_________________
Go Sens! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike McCormick
Guru of Gab
Joined: 25 Nov 2000
Posts: 1643
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you all want to talk about ride and the law, please start another thread.
_________________
Frolfing happily along. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lissyssil
Champion of Chains
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 2565
Location: Aylmer, QC
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash wrote: | | lissyssil wrote: | Is this a "regional qualifying event"? Where did this spot in the USDGC come from?
On the USDGC site, there is a pdf that states that:
| Quote: | Competitors must meet the following requirements to qualify for the 2011 USDGC:
You must have a PDGA Player Rating of 850 or higher
At regional qualifying events you must play the exact course configuration(s) as the Open Division. Playing on the same days and/or times is not required. |
If I bring my 824 up to 850 before the USDGC, is that sufficient?
(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm REALLY bummed about this at the moment) |
Given what you've quoted and what you've signed up for, playing in Am-2 wouldn't let you win the spot either since it isn't using the same course configuration as the Open Division. C'mon up to Am-1 and you'll have a better idea of how you might have fared. |
I never got an answer as to whether or not this event qualifies as a "Regional Qualifier", or if that term is reserved for the "Official" qualifiers.
| USDGC wrote: | Section 2. Official Qualifying Events
A total of ten (10) positions will be awarded at each qualifying events. The top ten (10) overall scores will qualify for the 2011 USDGC. |
I'll be on my way to AM-1 soon enough. Let me enjoy the shallow end of the pool for a little while longer.  Hell, if I'd played AM-2 in California, I would have finished DFL of about 45 people...
_________________
Go Sens! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumber
LNF Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 8278
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And you shot a 6 down the other day at CF....CAHMAN Marko....step it up and play with some big guns
_________________
meh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jefrey A. Brother
King Jefrey
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Posts: 10042
Location: First tee
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Play where you feel comfortable. You'll have lot's of opportunities to be a donor in your DG career. A rating of <850 is not a rating for the top Amateur division.
_________________
Boyle says BOOM! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roxie
Plaid Jacket Champion
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 6930
Location: Dog River
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have been given one spot for Eastern Canada region. I don't think we are slotted into the regional qualifiers with the 10 positions. We would fall under Section 3 of that pdf.
_________________
If you can't win the event in regulation, try, try, try again.
Last edited by Roxie on Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
