🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Law
0
answers
1
watching
134
views

If anyone needs help with an Essay (any grade, no plagiarism) send me an email at [email protected] 

I charge the range of $10-20 dollars per essay.

 

Watch
0
answers
1
watching
134
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Related questions

Grade 9 english:

  1. Think back to Charlotte Edmund's article, "7 skills all young people need to survive the future of the workplace" from the first activity in this lesson. Choose the skill you believe to be the most important to your future
  2. Write a few paragraphs to explain why you feel this way. If you think there's a skill the author didn't mention that's more crucial to your future, explain what it is and why you believe so. Give your strongest writing. Plan your ideas before you start writing, then use paragraphs to organize your piece. After you have a first draft, revise it, looking at paragraph unity, sentences, spelling, and capital letters.

Article:

7 skills all young people need to survive the future of the workplace


Dr. Tony Wagner, co-director of Harvard's Change Leadership Group, argues that today's
school children are facing a "global achievement gap," which is the gap between what even
the best schools are teaching and the skills young people need to learn.
This has been exacerbated by two colliding trends: firstly, the global shift from an industrial
economy to a knowledge economy, and secondly, the way in which today's school children —
brought up with the internet — are motivated to learn.
In his book "The Global Achievement Gap," Wagner identifies seven core competencies every
child needs in order to survive in the coming world of work.
1. Critical thinking and problem-solving
Companies need to be able to continuously improve products, processes and services in order
to compete. And to do this they need workers to have critical thinking skills and to be able to
ask the right questions to get to the bottom of a problem.
2. Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
Given the interconnected nature of the business world, leadership skills and the ability to
influence and work together as a team has become increasingly important. And the key to
becoming an effective leader? It's twofold, says Wagner, involving "creative problem-solving
and a clear ethical framework".
3. Agility and adaptability
The ability to adapt and pick up new skills quickly is vital for success: workers must be able to
use a range of tools to solve a problem. This is also known as "learnability", a sought-after
skills among job candidates.
4. Initiative and entrepreneurialism
There is no harm in trying: often people and businesses suffer from a tendency to be riskaverse. It is better to try 10 things and succeed in eight than it is to try five and succeed in all
of them.
5. Effective oral and written communication
Recruits' fuzzy thinking and inability to articulate their thoughts were common complaints that
Wagner came across from business leaders when researching his book. This isn't so much
about young people's ability to use grammar and punctuation correctly, or to spell, but how to
2/3
communicate clearly verbally, in writing or while presenting. "If you have great ideas but you
can't communicate them, then you're lost," Wagner says.
6. Accessing and analyzing information
Many employees have to deal with an immense amount of information on a daily basis: the
ability to sift through it and pull out what is relevant is a challenge. Particularly given how
rapidly the information can change.
7. Curiosity and imagination
Curiosity and imagination are what drive innovation and are key to problem solving. "We're all
born curious, creative and imaginative," says Wagner. "The average four-year-old asks a
hundred questions a day. But by the time that child is 10, he or she is much more likely to be
concerned with getting the right answers for school than with asking good questions.
"What we as teachers and parents need do to keep alive the curiosity and imagination that, to
a greater or lesser extent, is innate in every child."

Read the text above in the two photos attached and then answer these two discussion questions below

Facts:
On June 13, 2003, Constable Roughley received a call about a man trying to use a stolen credit card at an Ontario liquor store. An officer who was already at the scene radioed Roughley to say there were two male suspects. Roughley arrived on the scene and saw the other officer speaking to a cashier and one male customer. As he entered, Musibau Suberu walked out of the store past Roughley and said something like "It was him, not me, I guess I can go."
 
Roughley, said "wait, I need to talk to you", and followed Suberu out of the store and to a minivan. A short conversation followed. Suberu was sitting in the driver's seat and Roughley was standing beside the door. From this conversation, Roughley learned that the other man in the store was Suberu's friend, who had asked Suberu to drive him. Roughley then received another radio call with the license plate number of a van that had been used in another liquor store purchase involving a stolen credit card earlier that day. The license plate number matched the license plate of the van Suberu was sitting in. Roughley noticed liquor store bags in the back seat, and decided he had grounds to arrest Suberu for fraud.
 
Roughley arrested Suberu and advised him of the reason. Before he could tell Suberu about his right to counsel, Suberu made several other statements, along the lines of "if [my friend] admits it was him, can I go?" After a short conversation, Roughley told Suberu to "just listen" and was able to read him his rights.
 
At trial, Suberu argued that the evidence seized when he was arrested should be excluded from evidence, because he was not informed of his right to counsel at the time of detention. Suberu argued that Roughley had detained him at the point he told him to wait. The trial judge disagreed and convicted Suberu. The Court of Appeal found that Roughley had detained Suberu by telling him to wait. Roughley should have informed Suberu of his right to counsel at that point, but, there was only a very brief delay, which was allowed. They upheld the conviction. Suberu appealed to the Supreme Court.
 
The Decision:
The Court found that there was no detention, and upheld Suberu's conviction.
 
Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that when arresting or detaining someone, the police must inform the person of the reasons for the arrest or detention. The police must also inform the person of their right to speak to a lawyer, without delay.
 
A person is under police detention when they are either physically restrained by the police, or they have a legal obligation to comply with a police demand. A person can also be detained if they are put in a position where a reasonable person would believe they have a legal obligation to comply with the police, even if they actually do not.
 
In order to do their job, the police must be able to make inquiries and investigate matters. Roughley testified that this was why he approached Suberu, and that until he was radioed with the license plate number that matched the van Suberu was sitting in, he did not believe he had grounds to detain or arrest Suberu. When Roughley told Suberu to wait and followed him to the van, he did not consider Suberu to be under any legal obligation to comply. Suberu could have ignored Roughley's questions, or even driven away. Roughley did not try to obstruct Suberu's path, and Suberu did not say at any point that he didn't want to speak to Roughley. In all the circumstances, there appeared to be no detention. Since there was no detention, Roughley was not obligated to inform Suberu of his right to counsel at this point.
 
The Court went on to consider the meaning of "without delay" in section 10 (b) of the Charter. They concluded that the only logical meaning is "immediately." When the police make a detention, they must inform the subject of their Charter rights immediately.

1. The decision was released on the same day as R.v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32. Do you think these cases were decided in the same way or do you notice any difference in the justices’ reasoning?

2. Do you agree with the court that it was unreasonable for the Suberu do you think he was being detained? What do you think Constable Roughley would have had to do for the court to decide that there was a detention?

Read the text above and the two pictures attached and answer these two discussion questions below:

Two plainclothes police officers were on patrol in the Danforth area of Toronto. Their primary duty was to visit schools in the area to help create a safer environment and prevent the assaults, robberies, and drug offences that had been happening there. A third officer, Cst. Gomes, was in uniform and driving a marked police car, to provide a visible police presence in the area.
 
The plainclothes officers saw Donnohue Grant, a young black man, walking down the street. They noted that he seemed to stare at them in an unusual way, and was fidgeting with his coat and pants. They asked Gomes to "have a chat" with Grant to see if there was any reason to be concerned.
 
Gomes got out of his car and blocked Grant's path on the sidewalk. He asked Grant to provide his name and address. Grant nervously adjusted his jacket and Gomes asked him to keep his hands in front of him. The two plainclothes officers, who were watching the conversation from their own car, felt Grant was acting suspicious, and decided to stand by. They took up positions behind Gomes and flashed their badges to identify themselves as police officers.
 
Gomes asked Grant a number of questions, and in response Grant replied that he had been arrested a few years earlier, and that he was carrying a small amount of marijuana and a firearm. The officers arrested and searched Grant, and seized marijuana and a loaded revolver. Grant was advised of his right to counsel.
 
At trial, Grant claimed the officers had violated his rights under sections 8,9 , and 10 of the Charter and argued that the firearm should be excluded from the evidence under section 24(2). The judge did not find any Charter breaches, admitted the firearm into evidence, and convicted Grant of several firearm offences. On appeal, the court found that the police had arbitrarily detained Grant, and therefore breached his rights under section 9 of the Charter. However, they found that the firearm should still be admitted into evidence. Grant appealed further to the Supreme Court.
 
The Decision:
The Supreme Court found that the police had violated Grant's rights under sections 9 and 10 of the Charter.
 
Section 9 of the Charter protects people from being detained by the police without any good reason. Police detention may be physical-for example, handcuffing or restraining someone-or it may be psychological. Psychological detention happens when the police make a demand that a person must comply with, or when the police act in a way that gives the impression that the person must comply with a demand. If the Court has to decide whether or not there was a police detention, they will look at the whole set of circumstances and the way the interaction played out. If reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe they were being detained, the court will find out that there was a detention.
 
Although the police were acting within their powers when they decided to approach and question Grant. Grant was not  under any legal obligation to answer. When Gomes told Grant to keep his hands in front of him, he gave the impression Grant has to obey. This impression was reinforced by the plainclothes officers joining Gomes and standing behind him as backup. A reasonable person in these circumstances would most likely believe they had an obligation to do as the police said, so the court decided that Grant was psychologically detained.
 
The Court also found that the police had infringed Grant's the police must under section 10 of the Charter. At the time of detention, and of their right inform a detained person the reasons for their detention, and of his right to to speak to a lawyer. The police did not inform Grant of his right to counsel until after they had detained him, searched him, and arrested him. The court said this is too much of a delay.
 
Although the Court found the infringement of Grant's Charter rights serious, they also felt that the public interest in keeping guns off the streets outweighed it. Since this was an 'uncertain' area of the law at the time, the Court allowed the firearm into evidence. All but one of Grant's charges were upheld.
 

1. Do you agree with the courts decision to admit the fire arm as evidence? Why or why not?

2. The court wrote (paragraph 32) that if police are unsure, whether an individual thinks they’re being detained, “ it is open to them to inform the subject in unambiguous terms that he, or she is under no obligation to answer questions and is free to go.” do you think this is a good policy? Does it go too far or not far enough?

Related Documents

ENG 303 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Thesis Statement
amberhamster950
LAWS 2105 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum, Menton
BLAW 3201 Chapter : Syllabus BL 3201 Section 002
azuremammoth471

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Law 700
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in