Jack Layton pushes a woman in order to get on camera!

[GostHacked]

Thanks for your response. Ok what is "a" definition? I have your "be" definition but I'm still waiting for "a".

I like to elicit truthful responses from people. People are most truthful when they have elevated emotions. I count on that. If we aren't being truthful then discussion is wasted.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=help&do=01&HID=17

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

This is this board's definition of it.

You are posting because you know you will get a certain reaction out of people. And it does not contribute to the overall discussion at hand.

[Mr.Canada]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=help&do=01&HID=17

This is this board's definition of it.

You are posting because you know you will get a certain reaction out of people. And it does not contribute to the overall discussion at hand.

Nonsense. I'm posting my true feelings and opinions. That's what I should be doing, being honest.

I cannot control how people will react that's up to them and I'm not responsible for it. If they choose to lash out at me well then that's their choice and has nothing to do with me.

Jack Layton chose to assault that woman in order to get on TV. It isn't my fault he chose to touch another person without her permission, Ididn't have anything to do with it. I'm only here giving my opinion of the event. That's what we're discussing here, my opinions and they're no more or less important than your or anyone elses forthat matter.

Some people think it's perfectly fine to touch others without permission and that's fine too. It's all in the name of discussion, all opinions must be heard, well should be heard.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[fellowtraveller]

it would appear you don't factor the 10 inch insulation extension & envelope wrapping... or their window replacements... or other initiatives they have taken/plan to take. Quite an admirable effort by Jack Layton/Olivia Chow

None of that has anything to do with the token showmanship of having a tiny solar array to produce electricity and hot water. Of course a 120 year old home has some upgrades, it would be a pile of rubble otherwise.

[GostHacked]

Jack Layton chose to assault that woman in order to get on TV. It isn't my fault he chose to touch another person without her permission, Ididn't have anything to do with it. I'm only here giving my opinion of the event. That's what we're discussing here, my opinions and they're no more or less important than your or anyone elses forthat matter.

Now this is trolling at it's best. Because you said before that it was assault, then it was not assault, then yes, then no, then yes again. So your opinion does not count because it has changed a couple times in this thread.

And you think you are being honest in your questioning? I'll call you out on it.

[Mr.Canada]

Now this is trolling at it's best. Because you said before that it was assault, then it was not assault, then yes, then no, then yes again. So your opinion does not count because it has changed a couple times in this thread.

And you think you are being honest in your questioning? I'll call you out on it.

I said technically it was an assault. I've never wavered from that.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

The law is pretty clear, it was an assault. What I said was that judges don't have to follow this to the letter that their are exceptions judges can make which would most likely be the case here.

Layton directly applied force intentionally. That is an assault.

[fellowtraveller]

At this point in his career, Layton knows he has to do whatever to get his face back in front of Canadians. They are generally disinterested in what he has to say, the mime show from Gretzskys will have to do for now. If he had thought it through,, he could have brought large flash cards with pithy messages to show the camera.

Edited March 4, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[GostHacked]

I said technically it was an assault. I've never wavered from that.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

The law is pretty clear, it was an assault. What I said was that judges don't have to follow this to the letter that their are exceptions judges can make which would most likely be the case here.

Layton directly applied force intentionally. That is an assault.

Sure quite clear it is assault.

Do I really think it was an assualt? No, but I like my threads to have lots of responses and views so I always throw in a barb and it always works as the usual people always bite. I must be entertained.

If you follow the exact definition of the law then yes it's an assault however our judges aren't books, they're people with reasoning capabilities so it'd get thrown out.

Your own words dude.

You don't think it's assault, but you are goin on and on how it was assault.

[Mr.Canada]

Sure quite clear it is assault.

Your own words dude.

You don't think it's assault, but you are goin on and on how it was assault.

Right, as I said I think that any of our coutst would think it wasn't an assault but technically it is.

Now back onto the topic at hand please. Jack layton pushed a woman out of his way because she was blocking the camera. This clearly shows the pettiness of the man.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[M.Dancer]

Do I really think it was an assualt? No, but I like my threads to have lots of responses and views so I always throw in a barb and it always works as the usual people always bite. I must be entertained.

If you follow the exact definition of the law then yes it's an assault however our judges aren't books, they're people with reasoning capabilities so it'd get thrown out.

What can I say. You are dishonest and not swift

[Mr.Canada]

What can I say. You are dishonest and not swift

Well it was an assault if our laws are followed tothe letter.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

There's the definition, he did do those things.

[GostHacked]

Well it was an assault if our laws are followed tothe letter.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

There's the definition, he did do those things.

Then she assaulted him first. Layton almost got laid out.

[PIK]

I would not call it assault,he moved her arm, which could have came close to his face, but if harper had did something like that , your responses would be..................

[Mr.Canada]

I would not call it assault,he moved her arm, which could have came close to his face, but if harper had did something like that , your responses would be..................

...exactly the same.

[blueblood]

...exactly the same.

*cough...Bullshit...cough

[Moonbox]

Mr. Canada let's get over the assault okay? There was no assault here. If that's assault then bumping into someone at the subway is assault. Give it up. You're making yourself sound dumb.

Move on to funnier and more relevant things, like laughing at Layton for how starved he is for media attention.

[Mr.Canada]

Mr. Canada let's get over the assault okay? There was no assault here. If that's assault then bumping into someone at the subway is assault. Give it up. You're making yourself sound dumb.

Move on to funnier and more relevant things, like laughing at Layton for how starved he is for media attention.

What made it an assault isn't inadvertant physical contact that happens from time to time but instead it's from his intent. He intentionally used force against the girl.

He is media starved and he will go to almost any length to get it including using force against private citizens who get between him and the television camera.

[Peter F]

Ok so if I came up to you and pushed your arm out of my way, you wouldn't see that as an assault?

... I don't let people invade my personal space.

So if somone put an arm in your face you would push it away But if someone pushed your arm out of the way - thats assault but if you're the one pushing an arm out of the way thats ok then.

[blueblood]

What made it an assault isn't inadvertant physical contact that happens from time to time but instead it's from his intent. He intentionally used force against the girl.

He is media starved and he will go to almost any length to get it including using force against private citizens who get between him and the television camera.

As much as I hate to defend Layton, one must shut this clown up.

Have you ever heard of consent?

Chances are Layton said sorry to the girl and she could care less. It's not assault unless she thinks it is and a crown attorney will take her case. Damn eh?

As for Layton pulling the gutterball move by weaseling his way onto the equivalent of the super bowl, that's the issue here.

[Mr.Canada]

So if somone put an arm in your face you would push it away But if someone pushed your arm out of the way - thats assault but if you're the one pushing an arm out of the way thats ok then.

Not at all.

If anyone intentionally touches someone else at all in any way that's assault. It's about intent.

Even if you motion towards someone else in a threatening manner, that's also assault.

Or threatening someone else is also assault even though the other person isn't touched.

Just about anything can be assault.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Guest American Woman]

If anyone intentionally touches someone else at all in any way that's assault.

No, it's not. There's more to the definition, according to the Toronto criminal code:

An accused may commit an assault although he exerts no degree of strength or power when touching the victim. The force however must be offensive or an affront to an individual's dignity.

[Peter F]

Not at all.

If anyone intentionally touches someone else at all in any way that's assault. It's about intent.

Even if you motion towards someone else in a threatening manner, that's also assault.

Or threatening someone else is also assault even though the other person isn't touched.

Just about anything can be assault.

So she assaulted Mr.Layton.

[Moonlight Graham]

This obviously wasn't assault, but Layton is still an arse. Him finding a place to get his mug on TV during the games and scoping out a prime spot in the front row just so he could get maximum airtime just shows how fake this dork is.

Layton was trying to look like Mr. Patriotic Everyman Canadian but he just comes off as a phony attention-seeking arse. What a loser. i actually found it amusing watching him during the games and seeing how badly he was trying to get on TV.

[punked]

This obviously wasn't assault, but Layton is still an arse. Him finding a place to get his mug on TV during the games and scoping out a prime spot in the front row just so he could get maximum airtime just shows how fake this dork is.

Layton was trying to look like Mr. Patriotic Everyman Canadian but he just comes off as a phony attention-seeking arse. What a loser. i actually found it amusing watching him during the games and seeing how badly he was trying to get on TV.

I am sure that is what you would say about everyone who went to the bar to enjoy the game then?

[Alta4ever]

I am sure that is what you would say about everyone who went to the bar to enjoy the game then?

Why the bar with the TV camera? Why not a different one if he was only there to enjoy the game?

[Guest American Woman]

Why the bar with the TV camera? Why not a different one if he was only there to enjoy the game?

Why did anyone who was there go there instead of some other bar? You think they were all there because there was a camera there?

It's not exactly odd that tons of people went to Gretzky's to watch a major hockey game.