GostHacked Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 How does this dirtbag get bail anyways?? Quote
guyser Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 How does this dirtbag get bail anyways?? He doesn't...........now. Sitting in jail as we speak. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 As I figured. Thats not a type of bail hearing . That is a type of crime. Big diff. Anyhow , A violent criminal act would fall under a Superior Court Bail hearing for starters . So this happened with Mr Husbands with regards to his sexual assault charge? If found guilty of the charges relating to the Eaton’s shooting, would it be correct in saying that the determination of the court allowing mr Husbands bail for his sexual assault charges was incorrect? Or the Crown/Judge made an error in judgement on deciding Mr Husbands wasn’t a threat to the public and would pose no threat well at home Quote
jbg Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 What does one call a person charged with a sexual offence? Is not Mr Husband being referred to in media as the “accused Eaton center shooter?” And you defend this filth Waldo? Because in WaldoWorld the only way someone is a bad person is to deny global warming. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
BubberMiley Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 Have you been to WaldoWorld? I was thinking of going there this summer. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
waldo Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 And you defend this filth Waldo? ...and you continue to defend such an animal and the failed justice system that allowed him to , allegedly, turn a public place into a shooting gallery……… piss off... no one is defending him. like I said, whenever you're cornered you trot out your silly buggar act. Perhaps you could qualify a distinction between your use of the words "violent sex offender" and... now (as you backpedal, furiously), "convicted sex offender"? What's your silly buggar act distinction between the two phrases, hey? In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"? Because in WaldoWorld the only way someone is a bad person is to deny global warming. jbg, nice drive-by! But really, c'mon... are you still smarting? You shouldn't have let a mere drive-by swipe go without taking the opportunity to reinforce your denial - just how, as you say, 'bad a person', are you, hey? Quote
waldo Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 if you continue to purposely and improperly conflate externals to the internal workings within the formal judicial system there's not much point in continuing... is there?Its official you do not stand for anything as you have so clearly shown with your multiple opposing positions on the exact same issue, if you want people to take you serious choose one rather then switching your values according to the argument you are engaged in. no - you simply can't understand... rather, you refuse to acknowledge, a clear distinction, a clear delineation, between a principle within the formal judicial system court of law and something presently outside the bounds of the formal judicial system... the court of public opinion. In any case, I've challenged you many times over now to quit derailing this thread and take your concerns over to the appropriate thread - your presence is requested... here: Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 no - you simply can't understand... rather, you refuse to acknowledge, a clear distinction, a clear delineation, between a principle within the formal judicial system court of law and something presently outside the bounds of the formal judicial system... the court of public opinion. In any case, I've challenged you many times over now to quit derailing this thread and take your concerns over to the appropriate thread - your presence is requested... here: This is in "the court of public opinion" so what were you saying again? Because I don't remember being part of the "formal judicial system court of law". Unless you are suggesting that Derek L is part of the "formal judicial system court of law" and not part of the "the court of public opinion". Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
waldo Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 and... you continue to struggle with something so basic. When MLW member, 'Derek L' (and you, I guess) choose to extend a formal judicial level accusation/charge into a formal judicial level quilt assignment, you sir... are taking liberties with a most fundamental principle of our judicial system, one entrenched in Canada's Charter of Rights. could it be any simpler for you: Court of Law vs. Court of Public Opinion... ya think? I see you're still afraid to even attempt to project upon your fake outrage in the appropriate thread! In any case, I've challenged you many times over now to quit derailing this thread and take your concerns over to the appropriate thread - your presence is requested... here: Quote
Argus Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 thanks Captain Obvious! Whether you accept it or not, those principle foundations of common law and our judicial system reach into and reflect upon everyday dialog... even here on MLW. No, in fact, they don't. The "innocent until proven guilty" legal vernacular perpetuates to a point of layman understanding, extension and usage. So what? I'm not about to give someone the benefit of a doubt I don't posses. This murderer is guilty of murder. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 it's irrelevant; the determination of guilt... or innocence, of an accused, is not a part of the bail process... you're simply reverting to your standard go-to - deflection/distraction! Yes, actually, it is. The amount and quality of the evidence indicating guilt will be taken into consideration, especially in terms of flight risk and danger to society. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 no - you simply can't understand... rather, you refuse to acknowledge, a clear distinction, a clear delineation, between a principle within the formal judicial system court of law and something presently outside the bounds of the formal judicial system... the court of public opinion. Like innocent until proven guilty... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 and... you continue to struggle with something so basic. When MLW member, 'Derek L' (and you, I guess) choose to extend a formal judicial level accusation/charge into a formal judicial level quilt assignment, you sir... are taking liberties with a most fundamental principle of our judicial system, one entrenched in Canada's Charter of Rights. could it be any simpler for you: Court of Law vs. Court of Public Opinion... ya think? I see you're still afraid to even attempt to project upon your fake outrage in the appropriate thread! You aren't that important to require outrage. My question was aimed to show your two-faced arguments, as both those discussions are in the "the court of public opinion" as none of us are capable of passing judgement that is legally binding. I can say that this guy is guilty of rape and murder and it is the exact same thing as you claiming the PM and conservatives are guilty of something. If one of those is covered under innocent until proven guilty then so is the other one, you seem incapable of even the most basic of distinctions and even when you are arguing both sides of the argument you seem too thick to even comprehend that, you have no logic, and you have no ability to understand the simplest of all arguments. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 Here is one for the rehabilitation of prisoners... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/06/08/toronto-police-sex-offender-warning.html Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
waldo Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 You aren't that important to require outrage. I said it was... fake outrage. Can you actually read? In any case, my importance to you seems paramount... you just can't get enough of responding to my posts, hey? My question was aimed to show your two-faced arguments, as both those discussions are in the "the court of public opinion" as none of us are capable of passing judgement that is legally binding. I can say that this guy is guilty of rape and murder and it is the exact same thing as you claiming the PM and conservatives are guilty of something. If one of those is covered under innocent until proven guilty then so is the other one, you seem incapable of even the most basic of distinctions and even when you are arguing both sides of the argument you seem too thick to even comprehend that, you have no logic, and you have no ability to understand the simplest of all arguments. no - again: Court of Law versus Court of Public Opinion... you simply haven't the capability to distinguish between the two. MLW member 'Derek L', repeatedly, took liberties in extending his "violent sexual offender" guilt attachment upon the judicial level, Court of Law, accusation charge. I keep telling ya... quit derailing this thread - if you want to argue within the Court of Public Opinion over the innocence of the Harper Conservatives in regards to, "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc.", take it to the appropriate thread. You know the thread, right? Apparently, the thread you won't touch with a 'ten foot pole', hey? In any case, I've challenged you many times over now to quit derailing this thread and take your concerns over to the appropriate thread - your presence is requested... here: Quote
waldo Posted June 9, 2012 Report Posted June 9, 2012 Here is one for the rehabilitation of prisoners... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/06/08/toronto-police-sex-offender-warning.html irrelevant distraction Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 I said it was... fake outrage. Can you actually read? In any case, my importance to you seems paramount... you just can't get enough of responding to my posts, hey? no - again: Court of Law versus Court of Public Opinion... you simply haven't the capability to distinguish between the two. MLW member 'Derek L', repeatedly, took liberties in extending his "violent sexual offender" guilt attachment upon the judicial level, Court of Law, accusation charge. I keep telling ya... quit derailing this thread - if you want to argue within the Court of Public Opinion over the innocence of the Harper Conservatives in regards to, "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc.", take it to the appropriate thread. You know the thread, right? Apparently, the thread you won't touch with a 'ten foot pole', hey? Person A: Not convicted of a crime at this point but in the eyes of the public he is guilty. THATS WRONG Person B: Not convicted of a crime at this point but in the eyes of a minority within the general public he is guilty. THATS RIGHT...wait doesn't sound right, giving rights to one person and refusing to acknowledge that another person has the exact same right... Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, or no one it cannot be someone in the middle. I can say that Mr Husbands is a violent sex offender, he is violent (The shooting) he is accused of the sexual assault and he has prior history all of which I as a member of the public and I assume thousands if not millions of people(Court of Public Opinion ) in Canada will see it the same way. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 irrelevant distraction Completely relevant, police state that they wanted the public to know because of his potential to re-offend. Now this seems like a failure in the justice system when the police likely would have to explain to the next victim or the family of the next victim why he was released while still dangerous. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
jbg Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Completely relevant, police state that they wanted the public to know because of his potential to re-offend. Now this seems like a failure in the justice system when the police likely would have to explain to the next victim or the family of the next victim why he was released while still dangerous. Ignore the ad hominem statements. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Ignore the ad hominem statements. say what? There were no ad homs from me. But, uhhh... no drive-by swipe this time? Because in WaldoWorld the only way someone is a bad person is to deny global warming. jbg, nice drive-by! But really, c'mon... are you still smarting? You shouldn't have let a mere drive-by swipe go without taking the opportunity to reinforce your denial - just how, as you say, 'bad a person', are you, hey? Quote
jbg Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 say what? There were no ad homs from me. But, uhhh... no drive-by swipe this time? Drive-by?Waldo-World is a famous amusement park on the outskirts of Kapuskasing. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Here is one for the rehabilitation of prisoners... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/06/08/toronto-police-sex-offender-warning.html irrelevant distraction Completely relevant, police state that they wanted the public to know because of his potential to re-offend. Now this seems like a failure in the justice system when the police likely would have to explain to the next victim or the family of the next victim why he was released while still dangerous. your linked reference was to someone convicted... being released from prison. Clearly, the person you're projecting your fake outrage over was only an accused out on bail. Even as muddled as your thinking is, it's hard to see how you can tie these together! Quote
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Drive-by?Waldo-World is a famous amusement park on the outskirts of Kapuskasing. apparently, you can't own your words and their initial usage/intent Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 I said it was... fake outrage. Can you actually read? In any case, my importance to you seems paramount... you just can't get enough of responding to my posts, hey? no - again: Court of Law versus Court of Public Opinion... you simply haven't the capability to distinguish between the two. MLW member 'Derek L', repeatedly, took liberties in extending his "violent sexual offender" guilt attachment upon the judicial level, Court of Law, accusation charge. I keep telling ya... quit derailing this thread - if you want to argue within the Court of Public Opinion over the innocence of the Harper Conservatives in regards to, "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc.", take it to the appropriate thread. You know the thread, right? Apparently, the thread you won't touch with a 'ten foot pole', hey? [/i So how does the bail hearing work again? Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 your linked reference was to someone convicted... being released from prison. Clearly, the person you're projecting your fake outrage over was only an accused out on bail. Even as muddled as your thinking is, it's hard to see how you can tie these together! It's actually quite simple, to me this is the failure of the Canadian justice system, somebody who behaved like an animal, brutally hurt another human being and proceeded to refuse help over the term of his incarceration at which point he is released to reoffend. Looks like you don't stand for much but I do and to me this is outrageous I don't have to pretend to be outraged I am, this POS is out in the public where he poses a serious risk because he refused treatment which to me means he finds his behaviour perfectly acceptable. Now as for the animal in question, to me he is guilty, remember the court of public opinion? I say he is guilty based on what I believe. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.