?Impact

This case is not about self defense, that is a whole different kettle of fish. To justify self defense generally you need: a) the accused must have been unlawfully assaulted by the victim; * the accused must not have provoked the unlawful assault by the victim; c) the force used by the accused was not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the victim; and d) the force used by the accused was no more than necessary to enable the accused to defend him or herself As worded they are asking for a vigil to show solidarity and support for the family that lost a son. Unfortunately I expect your suspicion is right that these vigils will have people seeking more than support, and that is when and where you have a right to object. It doesn't, and when that happens you have the right to object. ---- * Gawd, I hate software that is too smart for it's own good. That was supposed to be part of a list, not some silly emoji.

Yes, as I suggested above that would be an unlawful act if Stanley did not have reasonable suspicion that his (including family) life and property was being threatened. I didn't see everything on the trial, but I believe another neighbour had property stolen by this gang right before and assume that Stanley was aware of that (eg. by phone call).

Manslaughter is culpable homicide, or a special instance of it. Since Stanley believed he was defending his life and property then would there be an unlawful act or criminal negligence on his part? It really boils down to their belief that he did not pull the trigger intentionally. It is hard to say what other circumstances would yield as results, but I suspect if he tried to fire over their heads and hit them instead then it would be considered criminal negligence. If he had no reason to suspect them as a threat then it would be an unlawful act.

Agreed. The jury however thought there was reasonable doubt that the shooting was intentional (ie. it could have been accidental) so they decided against a charge of second degree murder. I'm not sure if culpable homicide was even considered, but given the circumstances my guess is it would be considered non-culpable. Responsibility in this case is up to the individual to take, not the court to mandate. ------ A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being, (a) by means of an unlawful act; (b) by criminal negligence; (c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or (d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

Scott, I would have defended you as not being as partisan as others in here but you decided previously to use "Justine" in reference to our Prime Minister. I think you earned your rebuke.

Clearly you have zero understanding of the verdict. Reasonable doubt was found by the jury that the farmer intended to shoot the young man.

No I don't. Compassion for a family and community that is devastated is not wrong. What is wrong is interfering in the judicial system, and only the previous Prime Minister did that.

Yes, expressing sorrow for the grief a family is having with the death of their son is unacceptable. He should be bold like our previous Prime Minister, and express his dissatisfaction with the judicial system and say his opinion is the only one that counts. That is the kind of dictatorial Prime Minister we need.

Give me a break. It was that same committee that voted unanimously to release the Democratic memo.

Yet the House Intel committee voted unanimously to release the Democratic memo. That committee is chaired by a Republican, and the Republicans have a majority of seats (13 to 9) on the committee. No, this is 100% on Trump trying to hide the facts from the American public, and only his lemming followers are fooled.

Rural farming populations generally stayed put in bygone days, and they were the rule not the exception. Yes, when times were tough the young generation might move away but would often return home when times improved. It was the industrial revolution, and the migration to urban settlements that created mobility. As the personal investment investment in home and community grew in urban areas that mobility starts to be restricted. We still have young generations moving away, the only difference today is they don't move back, although in the past decade that trend has also reversed.

I did, and and Trump had zero problem declassifying the Nunes memo. You realize they both were classified when sent to the President.

Not if they interrupt Kim Kardashian.

Too funny, unfortunately the Trump supporters are incapable of understanding what that really means. They will follow him to the end of the Earth.

We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, revering the memory of ancestors who have conveyed to us the love for the Fatherland, belief in the good and justice, reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia and asserting the firmness of its democratic basic, striving to ensure the well-being and prosperity of Russia, proceeding from the responsibility for our Fatherland before the present and future generations, recognizing ourselves as part of the world community, adopt the CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. - 1993 China is a country with one of the longest histories in the world. The people of all of China's nationalities have jointly created a culture of grandeur and have a glorious revolutionary tradition. ... (very long winded) This Constitution, in legal form, affirms the achievements of the struggles of the Chinese people of all nationalities and defines the basic system and basic tasks of the state; it is the fundamental law of the state and has supreme legal authority. The people of all nationalities, all state organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organizations and all enterprises and institutions in the country must take the Constitution as the basic standard of conduct, and they have the duty to uphold the dignity of the Constitution and ensure its implementation. - 1982 (1988, 1993 amendments)

True, North America and South America are continents, and Central America is simply a political boundary. The isthmus of Panama is what connects the two continents above sea level; this is roughly the area where the country of Panama is located. It is composed of both volcanic islands, and sedimentary rock that filled in to create a land bridge. Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica are all part of continental North America as are many of the island countries as well (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago). Panama is for the most part also part of North America, the dividing line being the Darién watershed which is also the political boundary with Colombia.

When I was growing up, the NHL didn't participate in the Olympics.

Yes, there does need to be a better validating of membership but I am not sure if that accomplishes it. What really is needed is: 1. Ensuring members are Canadian citizens 2. Members are only members of a single party (? I think this is important, but can see some minor counter arguments) 3. Members are authenticated, not just a name on a paper along with a fee

On computers Made in China.

There is a lot of American (and other) influence in Canadian elections. Perhaps not as grass roots as the other way around, it is far more organized and well funded.

I find that the majority of people I meet are fairly nice. The biggest difference I have found between urban and rural areas is that in rural areas you run into the same people far more often so more of your casual meetings are with people you are familiar with - period. It has absolutely nothing to do with compassion.

Trump has been in politics since at least 1988, that is 30 years. Trudeau Jr. would be 17 then.

Yes, like the many foreign owned petroleum companies that fund initiatives to influence public policy.

That's ok, Trump makes our neighbours a laughing stock ten times daily.

So what exactly are you doing to come together and share common goals?