Shooting at the Eaton Centre

[waldo]

So how does the bail hearing work again?

I believe MLW member, 'guyser', took care of your bail related questions... quite well. I'd suggest you keep trying with him - try harder, perhaps!

[waldo]

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.

again, your latest reference to a convicted person being released from prison has nothing to do with the individuals accusation charge being discussed. As for your personal 'court of public opinion' guilty belief, good on ya! We have made progress!!! You now can make the distinction. How many posts did it take... ahhh, yes --- Waldo Perseverance 1 : Signals.Cpl 0

[Signals.Cpl]

again, your latest reference to a convicted person being released from prison has nothing to do with the individuals accusation charge being discussed. As for your personal 'court of public opinion' guilty belief, good on ya! We have made progress!!! You now can make the distinction. How many posts did it take... ahhh, yes --- Waldo Perseverance 1 : Signals.Cpl 0

So what was the issue at hand? That someone said he was guilty? The public court of opinion? And you tried to tell us that he wasn't guilty?

[waldo]

So what was the issue at hand? That someone said he was guilty? The public court of opinion? And you tried to tell us that he wasn't guilty?

that's gold, Jerry! Gold!

other than reinforcing you haven't a clue what you presumed to be arguing about... how about you finally come on over to the 'robocalls thread' and offer-up your opinion to support your claim of Harper Conservative innocence... in the threads court of public opinion, hey?

[Signals.Cpl]

that's gold, Jerry! Gold!

other than reinforcing you haven't a clue what you presumed to be arguing about... how about you finally come on over to the 'robocalls thread' and offer-up your opinion to support your claim of Harper Conservative innocence... in the threads court of public opinion, hey?

This is not about PM Harper or this POS who shot up Eaton Centre, this is about your total disregard for your own opinions. You claim that one deserves to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and then you move to another subject and claim that someone is guilty even though they have not gone through a court. This is a great example of hypocrisy as you claim that 5 people can look at the PM and say he is guilty and its ok because its the Court of Public Opinion and then when the same 5 guys look at this piece of trash and say he is guilty that suddenly becomes wrong since its no longer the court of public opinion? Come on man decide, you can have one or the other, you can't pick and choose depending on your mood. Its either both are in the "Court of Public Opinion" and guilt or innocence is an opinion or they are both protected by principal innocent until proven guilty and thus its wrong to claim they are criminals without a conviction.

I was asking you to take a stand, any stand rather then taking all stands you on the other hand make statements that are so vague that you can switch your argument and you are trying to bring the "robocalls" here. It has nothing to do with that, all I wanted was you to tell everyone why you flipflop on every issue.

[Guest Derek L]

I believe MLW member, 'guyser', took care of your bail related questions... quite well. I'd suggest you keep trying with him - try harder, perhaps!

I'm still waiting for his reply.......So that’s a no on bail determination?

[waldo]

This is not about PM Harper or this POS who shot up Eaton Centre

no - that is exactly what it was/is about:

- one case (the sexual charge) formally within the judicial system; the Court of Law, with a fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty". In this case, liberties were taken to extend upon the judicial level accusation to label the accused guilty - a, "violent sexual offender".

- the other case (Harper Conservatives & "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc."), not (presently) within the judicial system; presently before the Court of Public Opinion. In this case, overwhelming evidence suggestive of Harper Conservative involvement has predisposed some of the public to judge the Harper Conservatives as guilty. (of note: you were challenged to channel your fake outrage toward the appropriate MLW thread dealing with, "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc."... given your particular degree of fake outrage, you were repeatedly challenged to make your alternate case within that thread. Clearly, you won't touch that thread with the proverbial '10 foot pole'!

[waldo]

I'm still waiting for his reply.......So that’s a no on bail determination?

don't know what you're talking about and have no interest to play along... I do recall suggesting bail was an irrelevant consideration in this discussion. I certainly await you bringing your thoughts forward... you know, instead of trying to tease something out of other posters. Why not just step out of the fog and say what you want to say about bail - you could do that, right?

[Signals.Cpl]

no - that is exactly what it was/is about:

- one case (the sexual charge) formally within the judicial system; the Court of Law, with a fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty". In this case, liberties were taken to extend upon the judicial level accusation to label the accused guilty - a, "violent sexual offender".

- the other case (Harper Conservatives & "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc."), not (presently) within the judicial system; presently before the Court of Public Opinion. In this case, overwhelming evidence suggestive of Harper Conservative involvement has predisposed some of the public to judge the Harper Conservatives as guilty. (of note: you were challenged to channel your fake outrage toward the appropriate MLW thread dealing with, "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc."... given your particular degree of fake outrage, you were repeatedly challenged to make your alternate case within that thread. Clearly, you won't touch that thread with the proverbial '10 foot pole'!

You sir are one in a billion...I don't think Canada can take another nut like you...

[waldo]

You sir are one in a billion...I don't think Canada can take another nut like you...

post reported

[Signals.Cpl]

post reported

Spell my name right, and thanks for showing me that there are people as close-minded as you. I'm never going take you seriously again... I was wondering why so few did...

Edited June 11, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[waldo]

Spell my name right, and thanks for showing me that there are people as close-minded as you. I'm never going take you seriously again... I was wondering why so few did...

if you can't control your emotions, I'd suggest you signoff occasionally... take breaks... breathe deeply, relax. Try and gather your thoughts and come back with a clearer head - I bet it would do wonders for your focus/concentration... I'm sure your comprehension would improve as well. Good luck with your struggle.

[Signals.Cpl]

if you can't control your emotions, I'd suggest you signoff occasionally... take breaks... breathe deeply, relax. Try and gather your thoughts and come back with a clearer head - I bet it would do wonders for your focus/concentration... I'm sure your comprehension would improve as well. Good luck with your struggle.

Trying to understand what hell it must be like in your head was my struggle... I decided I don't even want to know, I don't think I want to even glimpse whatever demons you have in there.

[jbg]

Trying to understand what hell it must be like in your head was my struggle... I decided I don't even want to know, I don't think I want to even glimpse whatever demons you have in there.

There are people who specialize into getting into people's heads and helping them (link). Edited June 11, 2012 by jbg

[bleeding heart]

Are posters here actually drawing an exact equivalence between a powerful political Party accused of political wrongdoing, and a man actually legally accused within the legal system?

Does the problem with this truly have to be spelled out?

Edited June 11, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Signals.Cpl]

Are posters here actually drawing an exact equivalence between a powerful political Party accused of political wrongdoing, and a man actually legally accused within the legal system?

Does the problem with this truly have to be spelled out?

No, just the individuals within the party and this individual. You cannot claim one person has the right and privilege to be considered innocent until proven guilty and another person and/or group of people are guilty because you say so without a trill of any sort. Everyone has the same rights or no one has those rights, regardless if you are a murderer or a politician. I believe that I can say I think he is guilty based on the evidence I have just like you might think PM Harper is guilty based on the evidence at hand but when some numpty starts whining about innocent until proven guilty for a murderer but at the exact same time he does not afford the same right to a law abiding citizen thats when it becomes a problem.

[waldo]

Are posters here actually drawing an exact equivalence between a powerful political Party accused of political wrongdoing, and a man actually legally accused within the legal system?

Does the problem with this truly have to be spelled out?

yes, amazingly, they are drawing that exact equivalence. The clear distinctions between the two have been been highlighted, many times over. In particular, one MLW member is so incensed (fake outrage), that anyone could presume to form an opinion, a public opinion, based on the plethora of evidence, that Harper Conservatives had some involvement in the described "political wrongdoing". The guy keeps shouting vociferously, "innocent until proven guilty"... "innocent until proven guilty"! Now, many times over, this same MLW member has been requested to stop derailing this thread and to take his concerns over to the appropriate thread (currently active)... to actually step-up and presume to channel his (fake outrage) concerns over the guilty opinions being drawn over Harper Conservatives "political wrongdoing". Somewhat to be expected, that MLW member, will not even attempt to make a case for his, apparent, opinion that Harper Conservatives had no involvement in the described political wrongdoing. Of course... that just wouldn't fit with his fake outrage narrative.

[Guest Peeves]

You sir are one in a billion...I don't think Canada can take another nut like you...

I once played a game 'Looking for Waldo" I won't anymore though.

My concern over this case is an apparent cover up (?) over how the guy was 'out' and employed, and so on.

[waldo]

I once played a game 'Looking for Waldo" I won't anymore though.

still smarting, hey Peeves?

[Signals.Cpl]

I once played a game 'Looking for Waldo" I won't anymore though.

My concern over this case is an apparent cover up (?) over how the guy was 'out' and employed, and so on.

I think its more of a failure then a coverup.

[guyser]

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?

Not at all.

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

No.

No sure what your answer has to do with types of bail .

[Guest Derek L]

Not at all.

No.

No sure what your answer has to do with types of bail .

Simple, a determination is made by the Crown/Judge on the possibility of an accused person to commit another crime if granted bail…….In essence, when bail is denied, a judgement on the accused has been made based on the possibility of them committing a crime that has yet happened……..Hardly in the spirit of Innocent till proven guilty no?

In the case of the OP, when charged with a violent crime, coupled with a violent past, a judgement was made to allow Mr Husbands to go home…….Now if convicted of the Eaton center shootings, clearly said judgement on the granting of bail was in error, since the likelihood of Mr Husbands shooting people well in a Provincial remand center, awaiting trial for charges of sexual assault are almost nil.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Derek L

[guyser]

Simple, a determination is made by the Crown/Judge on the possibility of an accused person to commit another crime if granted bail…….In essence, when bail is denied, a judgement on the accused has been made based on the possibility of them committing a crime that has yet happened……..Hardly in the spirit of Innocent till proven guilty no?

Innocent until proven guilty holds , no matter what you or anyone else asserts,until the verdict is in. No more no less.

That said, the judge at bail first determines based on Primary grounds is you are a flight risk.(Note this is the first concern) , then moves to the Secondary grounds, "will you commit another offence like this if left out on bail".?

Finally the judge decides based on Tertiary grounds, meaning if this coincides with the administration of justice. (generally applied to murder or terrorist charges)

Absolutely in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty

In the case of the OP, when charged with a violent crime, coupled with a violent past, a judgement was made to allow Mr Husbands to go home…….Now if convicted of the Eaton center shootings, clearly said judgement on the granting of bail was in error, since the likelihood of Mr Husbands shooting people well in a Provincial remand center, awaiting trial for charges of sexual assault are almost nil.

Umm....what violent past beyond the sexual assault charge? Know something the rest of us dont? A minor charge for pot is....well minor.

The bail was not in error no matter how you look at it.

What personal Bonds were put up and by whom? Did the signatories on the bonds have money to burn if he failed to show? I think not.

Best we all stick with the facts and stop injecting falsehoods into the discussion.

Edited June 11, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Derek L]

Innocent until proven guilty holds , no matter what you or anyone else asserts,until the verdict is in. No more no less.

That said, the judge at bail first determines based on Primary grounds is you are a flight risk.(Note this is the first concern) , then moves to the Secondary grounds, "will you commit another offence like this if left out on bail".?

Finally the judge decides based on Tertiary grounds, meaning if this coincides with the administration of justice. (generally applied to murder or terrorist charges)

Absolutely in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty

There’s the point: "will you commit another offence like this if left out on bail"

What offence has been determined to have been committed? How is presuming the accused did commit a violent act, prior to the trial, innocent until proven guilty?

Umm....what violent past beyond the sexual assault charge? Know something the rest of us dont? A minor charge for pot is....well minor.

The bail was not in error no matter how you look at it.

What personal Bonds were put up and by whom? Did the signatories on the bonds have money to burn if he failed to show? I think not.

Best we all stick with the facts and stop injecting falsehoods into the discussion.

The one mentioned by his Father in the Star piece.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Derek L

[guyser]

There’s the point: "will you commit another offence like this if left out on bail"

And did he?

No he did not .

What offence has been determined to have been committed? How is presuming the accused did commit a violent act, prior to the trial, innocent until proven guilty?

The one mentioned by his Father in the Star piece.

Because he was nopt found guilty at his bond hearing.

He was not found guilty at his bond hearing. It aint that hard to fathom.

What did his dad say about his sons criminal record?