Swarming

gerryh
+3
#1  Top Rated Post
Let's change it up a bit from the usual.



http://globalnews.ca/news/7102029/le...llphone-video/


The following people are facing charges in connection to the incident:

Alden Jacque Blackplume, 54, of Lethbridge
Ernest Charles Crane Chief, 48, of Lethbridge
Dustin Courtney Okimaw, 33, of Lethbridge
Angela Dawn Spearchief, 28, of Lethbridge
Ruby Standing Alone, 46, of Lethbridge
Billy Reginald Wolf Child, 34, of Lethbridge
 
petros
+3
#2
Any chance the white victim is one of those horrific, weirdo Religion, God fearing, unarmed, sweet as apple pie, pacifist Conservative Hutterites?
 
Girth
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Any chance the white victim is one of those horrific, weirdo Religion, God fearing, unarmed, sweet as apple pie, pacifist Conservative Hutterites?

The victims was White, and all six perpetrators were Naitve, judging from the names of the accused.

These types of attacks, as well as violent crime, the victim and assailant are usually of the same race.
 
pgs
+1
#4
Blackfoot versus Crow . The stronger war party went home victorious.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#5
Sounds like misdemeanour assault. Is there some significance to the case I'm missing?
 
petros
+2
#6
Aggravated assault is indictable.
 
Tecumsehsbones
-1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Aggravated assault is indictable.

All crimes are indictable.

Aggravated by virtue of the multiple attackers?
 
petros
+2
#8
Stick to limping your way through US law. You are clueless to ours.

Do you know the difference between summary and indictable in Canada? Apparently no.
 
captain morgan
+3
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Sounds like misdemeanour assault. Is there some significance to the case I'm missing?


Systemic racism leading to violent attacks is rampant in Canada... haven't you been paying attention?
 
petros
+1
#10
Somebody is busy googling...
 
captain morgan
+3
#11
We should expect Singh to come out with a statement condemning this event followed with tales of woe about how he endured this very same treatment.

No doubt that Trudie will be marching in the protest parade spawned by this event, likely with tears in his eyes
 
petros
+2
#12
Its Lethbridge, can Trudeau drive a 10t? Obviously Singh can, he has a jingle truck in the driveway at home.
 
captain morgan
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Its Lethbridge, can Trudeau drive a 10t? Obviously Singh can, he has a jingle truck in the driveway at home.


Probably a no-go on the 10t, but Trudie does have mad skills as a snowboard instructor... Does that count for anything in Lethbridge?
 
petros
+3
#14
Charlie don't surf.
 
Twin_Moose
+3
#15
Stay tuned for Idle no more to organize a protest against the unlawful detention of 6 upstanding citizens of a sovereign nation.
 
gerryh
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

All crimes are indictable.
Aggravated by virtue of the multiple attackers?


No, all charges are not necessarily indictable.

And no such thing as misdemeanor.
 
petros
+2
#17
He doesn't know the difference between a Summary and Indictable offence in Canada.

First year law school shit even in the US.
 
spilledthebeer
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Sounds like misdemeanour assault. Is there some significance to the case I'm missing?






AS USUAL THERE IS MUCH YOU ARE MISSING!


A bunch of natives WHO ARE NEVER RACIST - just swarmed and attacked a LONE WHITE GUY!


Thus giving the LIE to LIE-beral claims that it is ONLY whites who are bigots!


As a self professed lawyer or maybe as a poorly trained security guard - you MIGHT be able to recognize the



INHERENT BIGOTRY of the latest LIE-beral effort to turn our Human Rights Kangaroo Court into the sort of institution capable



of putting on POLITICAL SHOW TRIALS for the benefit and education of the masses - which is LIE-beral Speak meaning



INTIMIDATE INTO SILENCE ANYBODY who even thinks of being critical of LIE-beral values!





Here is an article to illustrate that LIE-beral contempt for public opinion and general democracy is so severe that LIE-berals are now seeking to impose Mind Controls on us! With some comments of my own in brackets):

Lorry Goldstein says “Unconscious Racism” is the new McCarthyism.

From Toronto Sun. Published June 17, 2020

First there was racism. Then systemic racism. Now there’s unconscious racism.

(And how do you know if you are unconsciously racist? Our LIE-beral overlords will tell you - based on their own perceived BIASES and their politically motivated need to insult white people in exchange for votes from radical extremists and rabid union LEFTIES!)

(LIE-berals INSIST that we are all “systemic racists” in spite of our long term tolerance for messed up LIE-beral immigration policy that has resulted in our streets becoming crowded with LIE-beral selected immigration candidates who much prefer selling drugs, women and stolen property rather than being bothered performing honest tasks such as flipping burgers or something lame of that sort!)

For the average person, it’s an accusation of unconscious racism that’s the most dangerous in an era when being falsely accused of racism is the modern-day equivalent of being falsely accused of communism in the age of McCarthyism.

(Yes- various people have been publicly chastised for making quit innocuous remarks - such as the storm of protest that surrounds any Police chief who DARES to speak against the LIE-beral claim of systemic racism! LIE-beral BIAS is now curtailing freedom of speech - and doing so in defence of drunks and drug addicts and social disrupters such as the native chief who gave cops a hard time because HE HAD NOT BOTHERED to renew his vehicle plate sticker!)

So what does unconscious racism mean and what would it take for you to be found guilty of it by a human rights tribunal, if you were the subject, that is, the “respondent” of a complaint?

(Tv personality Jessica Mulroney could give us a clue! She is the wife of Ben Mulroney - and he is another tv personality and son of “Lyin` Brian Mulroney - former prime minister of Canada! So she has connections and whiners say she got onto her gig as host of a tv home decorating show by virtue of those connections and yes it is probably true - THAT SHE GOT A TRY OUT by virtue of the family name her hubby carries!)

(But a well known name - and one that many Cdns still get angry enough to SPIT at when they hear it since Lyin Brian is one of the most UNPOPULAR PM`s ever means such a name WILL NOT COMPENSATE for poor taste or awkward presence on camera! Talent IS REQUIRED! No doubt the famous name she carries got her in the door but ABILITY carries her!)

(So why the SOUR GRAPES from some black female influencer? The black woman who got Jessica Mulroney fired IS NOT a tv personality and is NOT IN LINE to become one now that Mulroney is gone! And the presence of Mulroney on tv has NOT blocked the career of Tracy Moore - the black tv personality on City tv!)

(As a white man with limited interest in either Cityline- the show Moore hosts nor any interest in the home renovation show that Mulroney hosted till she got fired because of that alleged “white privilege” CRAP - I HAD actually seen and heard a little of Moore- but was happily ignorant of the tv career of Mulroney! One HAS TO ASK - if “white privilege” is so very pervasive - then how did Moore get HER job? LIE-berals do NOT DEIGN to answer such questions!)

Unconscious racism means, according to an Ontario Human Rights Commission tribunal, that because “there will often be no direct evidence of discrimination; discrimination will more often be proven by circumstantial evidence and
inference.”

(We are then to be CONVICTED based on “circumstantial evidence and INFERENCE”! Sure sounds like THOUGHT CONTROL TO ME! And LIE-berals who desire to convict - without the bother of finding solid evidence - will now INFER that we are GUILTY - simply because IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT for LIE-berals to have some “villains” to name and shame so as to bolster their virtue signalling Soviet Socialist Propaganda!)

(The IRONY in this is that LIE-berals become ENRAGED when people like me suggest that a typical Human Rights Court run by a LIE-beral judge - should RIGHTLY BE CONDEMNED as a Kangaroo Court - one that is far more concerned about alleged hurt feelings than fussing over any semblance of legal logic or responsibility! LIE-berals are attempting to force Soviet Socialist Show Trials on us for SHAMELESS Propaganda reasons! Just like Joe Stalin and his ilk!)

(Another fine example of LIE-beral thought control would be their ODIOUS M-103 “motion” that they attempted to use to SILENCE their critics by suggesting that being hostile to radical Muslim terrorists was some sort of BIGOTRY and that such alleged bias should be regulated by Human Rights Kangaroo Courts simply because LIE-berals have decided it is CHEAPER for them to buy the votes of Muslim immigrants - than to bother trying to sway the thinking of ordinary Cdns!)
As such, “there is no need to establish an intention or motivation to discriminate. Rather, “the effect of the respondent’s actions on the complainant” is what is significant.

(So some goof suffering from sour grapes will make the complaint - and some vote hungry LIE-beral judge will decide BASED ON circumstantial evidence AND INFERENCE and LIE-beral party convenience - whether you might be guilty? With double pressure being put on you to prove you are not guilty - by somehow producing HARD FACTS to dispute the bias and inference of a LIE-beral who feels that some public virtue signalling MIGHT BENEFIT THE PARTY!)

(The idea that a Cdn could be convicted of anything based merely on INFERENCE without any hard evidence at all - and for the accused to offer a defence that includes complaints that malevolent others - including PROSECUTORS - are TWISTING WORDS and distorting meanings and SUGGESTING WITHOUT PROOF or hard evidence that you MERELY WERE THINKING of some set values that LIE-berals deem unworthy is LEGAL INSANITY!)

(Franz Kafka would be RIGHT AT HOME in a Human Rights Kangaroo Court - where prosecutors can CONVICT YOU based only on HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS - while you MUST PRODUCE HARD EVIDENCE that their HINTS AND INFERENCES ARE INCORRECT!)
 
gerryh
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

AS USUAL THERE IS MUCH YOU ARE MISSING!
A whole shit load of bullshit that has no bearing on the op deleted.


What the fu ck does any of that have to do with a swarming in lethbridge? There was no mention of race in the article, and while the names of the 6 men being charged appear to be first Nations, the name or race of the victim was not released.

Your race baiting bullshit is getting tiresome as hell.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Stick to limping your way through US law. You are clueless to ours.
Do you know the difference between summary and indictable in Canada? Apparently no.

No I don't. I'll look it up.

Any chance of an answer to my question?
 
Girth
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Stick to limping your way through US law. You are clueless to ours.
Do you know the difference between summary and indictable in Canada? Apparently no.


Forgive him.

T-Bones still is reading an old copy of "Canadian Law for Dummies." It's all they had at the loss prevention office in Richmond Hill. Chapters is located outside the mall he patrols.
 
petros
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

No I don't. I'll look it up.
Any chance of an answer to my question?

Why dont you know?

And yes, there is a chance.
 
gerryh
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

All crimes are indictable.
Aggravated by virtue of the multiple attackers?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...000/dd-eng.htm

Every person who commits an assault is guilty of either: an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or. an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Summary conviction carrys a prison term of a maximum of 2 years less a day.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...000/dd-eng.htm
Every person who commits an assault is guilty of either: an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or. an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Summary conviction carrys a prison term of a maximum of 2 years less a day.

Thank you. We have different terminology (and somewhat different time limits) down hereabouts.
 
petros
#25
You never studied any law history in law school? Odd.

An example of what makes it an aggravated assault.

R. v. McQuaid,[23] while it was not required to base culpability on subsection 21(1), the trial judge explicitly stated that he would have done so if necessary, writing,
While I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of these 6 accused on all counts based on the testimony of their accomplice, Danny Clayton, were it necessary, I would also be prepared to say that each of the accused and Danny Clayton were parties to the aggravated assault of Darren Watts as charged on the Indictment, within the meaning of s. 21(1). I am satisfied the men in the circle were all there for the same reasons: to kick or beat Darren Watts; or help in administering the beating; or encourage it; or stand -- as observed by others -- shoulder to shoulder so as to form a circle thereby ensnaring Darren Watts and preventing him from getting away or stopping others from coming to his rescue.
 
gerryh
#26
Considering the police have not said what these 5 guys are getting charged with or who the victim us, the majority of the comments are speculation out of ignorance, with that ignorance bordering on racism.

Some of the comments even show a definite lack of knowledge in Canadian law.
 
gerryh
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

You never studied any law history in law school? Odd.
An example of what makes it an aggravated assault.
R. v. McQuaid,[23] while it was not required to base culpability on subsection 21(1), the trial judge explicitly stated that he would have done so if necessary, writing,
While I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of these 6 accused on all counts based on the testimony of their accomplice, Danny Clayton, were it necessary, I would also be prepared to say that each of the accused and Danny Clayton were parties to the aggravated assault of Darren Watts as charged on the Indictment, within the meaning of s. 21(1). I am satisfied the men in the circle were all there for the same reasons: to kick or beat Darren Watts; or help in administering the beating; or encourage it; or stand -- as observed by others -- shoulder to shoulder so as to form a circle thereby ensnaring Darren Watts and preventing him from getting away or stopping others from coming to his rescue.


What's your point, it has not been made public what charges have been laid.
 
petros
+1
#28
He asked. I answered. Got a problem with that?

Cops go worst case scenario on charges. It's up to the Crown whether it's 267 or 268 and if it goes to Queen's Bench.
Last edited by petros; Jun 25th, 2020 at 02:11 PM..
 
gerryh
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

He asked. I answered. Got a problem with that?

Except it didnt answer what he asked. I'm sure, though, that citing case law made YOU feel intelligent.
 
Girth
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...000/dd-eng.htm
Every person who commits an assault is guilty of either: an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or. an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Summary conviction carrys a prison term of a maximum of 2 years less a day.

Does anyone else find it incredible, that a self-proclaimed American Lawyer, who happens to know an astounding amount on Canadian history and politics, cannot distinguish between a summary and indictable offense in said country, considering this was one of the first things I was taught in my Grade 10 High School law class?