?Impact

Yes you can be charged based on an admission, it depends on the how this confession was taken. They can be ruled inadmissible for a number of reasons, for example one in Newfoundland was ruled that way because the man had a concussion. There is also the case in Ohio of Matthew Cordle who received 6+ years based on his youtube video.

Perhaps the word is not but it does describe the concept that is found in the Bible as in: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - Matthew 28:19-20 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. - Acts 2:32-33 There are at least another dozen verses that reference the three as distinct, and yes as one as well. ---- I am not sure what concept you are getting at with all your references to alpha and omega. I see that as an all encompassing concept, not a binary one. Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet, it is like saying A to Z. I think Revelation 22:13 you quoted above confirms that.

Where did you get that understanding from, a propaganda film? Take the example of Donald Trump, in 2015 he actually responded to a jury summons, knowing full well that he would automatically be excused because he was running for President at the time. Quite conveniently he "never received" the previous five jury summons from earlier years. I don't think Trump is unique here in trying to avoid the jury draft. Sure doing your civic duty might be seen as the right thing to do, but when push comes to shove it is for most a big inconvenience they want to avoid. I suspect the system in NYC simply puts someone who doesn't appear higher on the list of possible candidates for future lotteries instead of following up with actual charges. The bigger problem it causes is you end up with people who do want to serve, and those are the last people you really want because they more than likely are very biased to begin with.

Hal did put "oval office" in as a qualifier. You know the public must know what goes on in there, if the President picks his nose or scratches his balls then it is national news.

If Toronto was a country, it would rank #43 (GDP) in the world.

What are the prerequisites for the protesting business, and how do I apply? It is kind of late this year, but I am thinking next winter on Vancouver island will be a welcome change from shoveling snow and slipping and nearly killing myself several times when the sidewalks become very icy.

I am placing this here to try and keep away from the partisan bickering in the politics section and discuss the criminal justice system and how decisions should be made. This is for any criminal trial where the accused may face incarceration, not for civil trials. First some very brief and incomplete history. At one time God decided the guilt or innocence of the accused. This was known as trial by ordeal, or trial by fire and water. It could involve the accused walking over red hot iron a given distance, being repeatedly dunked into a stream, retrieving a heavy rock from boiling water, having molten metal poured on ones chest, etc. If one lived, or escaped serious injury then they were innocent. This was a simple and infallible system because God made the choice. Unfortunately the Pope banned this practice many centuries ago so man now has to make the decisions. We can have nobility make the decisions, we can have professionals (ie. Judges) make the decisions, and we can have juries made up of citizens make decisions. While I am all for nobility making the decisions, we have a lack of nobility in this country and certainly not enough to hear all the criminal cases we have so that leaves Judges and Juries. I will start off the conversation with Juries and their makeup. Our judicial system is heavily influenced by the British one, so we should start there. Thanks to Henry II in 1166 we have the evidentiary model in which laymen, knights, and freemen under oath would inspect the evidence through inquiry. Not long after that the concept of peremptory challenges was introduced where the involved parties (or legal representative) were allowed refuse certain members of this jury. Initially 35 peremptory challenges were allotted for each side, and as time went on this number was reduced to 20 in 1509 and continued to be reduced when in 1977 it went from 7 to 3 and abolished completely in 1988. It was seen as a derogation from the principle of random selection, and felt that its removal would increase the fairness of the jury system. In Canada we generally have around 12 peremptory challenges allotted to each side in criminal trials, and this certainly has been seen as a problem by some Canadians as creating a biased jury. How should criminal convictions be decided? Should we continue to have ordinary citizens make decisions in a jury, and how should that jury be selected? Should decisions only be made by professionals (ie. judges)?

Stanley gave testimony that he was unaware they even had a gun.

The account I hear is that Stanley shouted at them when the ATV started up, and one on the ATV got back into the their vehicle and they started moving. There appears to be different accounts then of where they were going. Stanley's son then smashed their vehicle with a hammer, and Stanley kicked their vehicle; it is after that it collided into a parked car belonging to Stanley. Of course the old telephone tag has changed that into them ramming a truck. Another obvious possibility is when they heard Stanley they attempted to drive away but were attacked by Stanley and his son and lost control of their vehicle. If you were in a car and the window got smashed in with a hammer, could you say that you would remain in complete control? I am not trying to lay blame here, just pointing out that there are many possible scenarios and stating a Internet story as fact is quite misleading.

From what I have heard, yes that sounds right. The allegation is they attempted to steal a truck from the Fouhy farm, apparently a neighbour but I am not sure when and how far away that was; while they didn't succeed in stealing the truck I am assuming they did some damage. They had been drinking, not sure if that included the one(s) driving and what the blood alcohol level of the driver was. On the Stanley farm the allegation is they started up an ATV. Does that list sound right, or do you have other specific crimes they committed?

Yet another shining example of being misquoted. I never said anything remotely like that, yet you slap a label on me and put words in my mouth.

Which it certainly would. She was taken to the hospital as a precaution until they had chemical results from the powder, but I can certainly understand how she was coughing and feeling nauseous after she opened it. If I were in her position and received such a letter I am sure I would not be feeling fine, I hope they are able to track down the crackpot and reward him with a nice warm cell for a few years. I'm not sure what charges would be involved, but they certainly would include making a threat and Americans always seem to have a bunch of mail associated crimes people can be charged with.

For those with there gender studies degree, there are plenty of jobs available.

I guess I am not as familiar with the case as you seem to be. Could you tell me where that happened?

Bagging a President is even more.

Could you please point that out in the criminal code

Every citizen, or are you under the impression that if a cop has a suspicion then the citizen they are intruding on must be a criminal?

I believe in wizards and wizardry, for I have read Harry Potter. It spoke to me.

What exactly does that mean? Does it not describe a broad cross section of young males of all stripes across North America culture for the past 70+ years? Sure the hair, clothing, tattoos, and music have changed over the years but the the basic culture remains. I have no insight into this particular case, but quoting a facebook account that reflects the culture of youth is meaningless.

Are you suggesting that we move away from a confederation and become a top down hierarchy?

Yes, and if you would go back and highlight "today" you will notice that one is referencing the incident, and the other is about the general case. Yes there certainly was a lot of harmony when Harper was PM - choke, choke.

I am answering very clearly: I would not plan for violence. This goes along with the planning for violence. You are implying an arms war, just get the biggest gun you can.

There are many different kinds of police work, but many do fall in the trap of if they see something out of the ordinary then start exercising authority. Unfortunately too often the "something out of the ordinary" is about the person (race, age, activity) but has nothing to do with the legality of what they are doing. Authority is something earned, unfortunately the average police officer thinks their training is how they earned it. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is also very easily lost, and that happens all the time when it is abused.

Perhaps a better title would be: "I will leverage the Stanley verdict for political gain - I will pretend to be balanced when I am nothing but." Ibbitson at least used the entire quote, then completely changed the context. Again I return to the root, because that is where the truth lies. Take Trudeau's entire quote (it is not long) and then make your argument in context.

Elections are often fought on ideology, but governing should't be.