Quote: Originally Posted by Said1
How would I know that? And yes, it was all of a sudden. You started out ok, though.
It wasn't all of a sudden. I always ask for verification when people introduce what they purport to be facts. Facts require verification. Academic debate does not require verification. The debate is focused on merit.
I've only read two of your posts. I know you're not a lawyer. But neither am I.
So what are you? What qualifies you to speak with authority on the subject of abuse, particularly with respect to domestic abuse?
Not all cases that come before the courts are listed and I haven't searched for R V Ferguson and R V Whynot. Both used the the battered women's syndorom, although Whynot was convicted on appeal and sentanced to six months. There is another more recent although I can't remember the women's last name - happened in small Ontario/Quebec boarder town, very close to Gatineau. That's three off the top of my head. I know two of them personally. One is a violent criminal, the other is not.
What's the 'R' mean? Were they 'R' rated cases?
Yes, you were being redundant. Just call them how I see them.
How so? What did I say or do that was redundant?
I didn't claim the courts do not say 'think again' more often than not.
That's where it gets interesting. Why you ask? Because of precedent. If a majority of courts say no, then there is precedent. Courts are generally reluctant to go against the grain under those circumstances. Especially if the precedent was set by a higher court.
You mentioned that one woman was convicted on appeal by the crown. That to me would suggest that a precedent was set in a higher court. Lower courts almost never rule contrary to a precedent established in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Canada. Why you ask? Because leave to appeal would be damn near guaranteed. And the decision of the lower court would be overturned or set aside and a new trial ordered.
And, if you honestly think I'm referring to YOU or some vigilante group when speaking about those who interpret and apply the law, I would have to say you are being purposely obtuse. Actually, you probably aren't. I should apologize for that. We'll see.
I made no suggestion that I was somehow involved with vigilanteism. So why on Earth would I think that you were speaking of me?
I asked because there are many people who interpret and apply the laws. These people include the Crown prosecutors, private practice lawyers, law enforcement (police), and judges, among others. All of them get told that they are wrong from time to time. With police officers being wrong most frequently, followed by the crown, followed by private practice lawyers, followed by lower court justices.
Well, you kind of remind me of a student. They like to quote charters and junk.
You don't have to be a student to expect accuracy.
What do you do for a living, help batter women?
No, I don't batter women. My modus operandi is to remain as far away from women as humanly possible. And I'm not exagerating one iota here. You should read some of the letters I've written and faxed. I make myself very clear.
I've actually never "hit" a female in my entire life. And by "hit", I mean in the literal sense. I do not mean the slang. i.e. fu-cked a female.