Shooting at the Eaton Centre

[Guest Derek L]

And did he?

No he did not .

At this point in time, yes, he’s only been accused of committing a very violent crime……as I’ve qualified, if convicted, clearly the decision to grant him bail was in error.

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?

Perhaps you’re the one having a problem fathoming my contention…….Why hasn’t Mr Husbands been granted bail with these recent charges?

[guyser]

At this point in time, yes, he’s only been accused of committing a very violent crime……as I’ve qualified, if convicted, clearly the decision to grant him bail was in error.

Nice, do you call the lottery office after the draw and ask for a ticket with yesterdays dates and numbers on it? Cuz ya'd win ya know.

You cannot take what he allegedly did at Eaton Centre and apply it to a person who , previous to his sex assault charge , only had a pot conviction on his record.

You are taking current events and applying it retoactively to a time and place where none of this had occured yet.

Perhaps you’re the one having a problem fathoming my contention…….Why hasn’t Mr Husbands been granted bail with these recent charges?

Why?

Because he showed he didnt follow the first set of bail conditions.

He is charged w a very serious crime which as I mentioned far earlier is a mitigating factor.

Like I said, it aint that hard to fathom. Dont make it difficult.

Edited June 11, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Derek L]

Nice, do you call the lottery office after the draw and ask for a ticket with yesterdays dates and numbers on it? Cuz ya'd win ya know.

You cannot take what he allegedly did at Eaton Centre and apply it to a person who , previous to his sex assault charge , only had a pot conviction on his record.

Certainly, hindsight is 20/20, but if Mr Husbands is found guilty on the recent charges, clearly this demonstrates an error in judgement had been made………

Why?

Because he showed he didnt follow the first set of bail conditions.

He is charged w a very serious crime which as I mentioned far earlier is a mitigating factor.

Like I said, it aint that hard to fathom. Dont make it difficult.

Sexual Assault isn't serious?

[guyser]

Certainly, hindsight is 20/20, but if Mr Husbands is found guilty on the recent charges, clearly this demonstrates an error in judgement had been made………

No it does not .

For one, he hasnt been convicted of the sex assault charge and may never ever be.

Secondly you cannot attribute an error to an after the fact occurence on a situaiton that happened in the past.

Here, try this.

He was brought in on charges to a bail hearing on sex assault. His prior record (AFAIK) is a minor pot conviction.

Thats it. The judge set bail at $4000 ($2000 a piece to 2 guarantors) Not unreasonable and not normally cause for concern.

By your own estimation, one mistake and the world has fallen apart

Sexual Assault isn't serious?

Could be, could be not.

Could be as simple as some woman claimed he touched her breast at a bar .

Could be a woman who said yes then decided no

COuld be very serious involving a dozen other matters.

We do not know, you do not know , no one here knows, and thats because those records are sealed for the time being. And in light of the new charge, the sex assault charge may never get prosecuted and the publication ban on that same charge may never get lifted.

[Guest Derek L]

No it does not .

For one, he hasnt been convicted of the sex assault charge and may never ever be.

Secondly you cannot attribute an error to an after the fact occurence on a situaiton that happened in the past.

Here, try this.

He was brought in on charges to a bail hearing on sex assault. His prior record (AFAIK) is a minor pot conviction.

Thats it. The judge set bail at $4000 ($2000 a piece to 2 guarantors) Not unreasonable and not normally cause for concern.

By your own estimation, one mistake and the world has fallen apart

I doubt the families and victims of the Eaton’s shooting share your glib approach.

Could be, could be not.

Could be as simple as some woman claimed he touched her breast at a bar .

Could be a woman who said yes then decided no

COuld be very serious involving a dozen other matters.

We do not know, you do not know , no one here knows, and thats because those records are sealed for the time being. And in light of the new charge, the sex assault charge may never get prosecuted and the publication ban on that same charge may never get lifted.

Indeed, it’s rather convenient that info pertaining to his prior court dealings have been sealed……..Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?

[guyser]

I doubt the families and victims of the Eaton’s shooting share your glib approach.

They are not part of our discussion, but introduced by you for some silly reason

The simple truth is, you really didnt understand how the system works. That you made obvious.

You are not the only guilty one, but part and parcel of those who are always clamoring for harsher sentences and browbeating on our justice systems as slack. It mostly appears those who do not know the system and how it works tend to rely on emotion as the guiding principles for changes.

Indeed, it’s rather convenient that info pertaining to his prior court dealings have been sealed……..Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?

Yes, and apparently you have no idea why.

Its not because of the new charges re Eatons. It has to do with the fact that sex assault cases are almost universally 'publication banned' for various and sundry reasons pertaining to the plaintiff, not the defendant.

Let me guess....you didnt see that coming did you?

Oh, and by the way, in this sex assault charge/court appearance, it is the plaintiff behind the curtain

Edited June 11, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Derek L]

They are not part of our discussion, but introduced by you for some silly reason

The simple truth is, you really didnt understand how the system works. That you made obvious.

You are not the only guilty one, but part and parcel of those who are always clamoring for harsher sentences and browbeating on our justice systems as slack. It mostly appears those who do not know the system and how it works tend to rely on emotion as the guiding principles for changes.

Yes, and apparently you have no idea why.

Its not because of the new charges re Eatons. It has to do with the fact that sex assault cases are almost universally 'publication banned' for various and sundry reasons pertaining to the plaintiff, not the defendant.

Let me guess....you didnt see that coming did you?

Oh, and by the way, in this sex assault charge/court appearance, it is the plaintiff behind the curtain

So we’re back to the (emotional) fact that if the judge/crown had of refused bail to Mr Husbands, the alleged crime he committed, would not have taken place……..It’s seems rather clear cut to me……Have they released the Judges name, or is that “secret” too?

And to clarify, if a Judge denies bail, is that not a judgement based on possible future guilt? (You and Waldo seem to stumble over that one...)

[waldo]

So we’re back to the (emotional) fact that if the judge/crown had of refused bail to Mr Husbands, the alleged crime he committed, would not have taken place……..It’s seems rather clear cut to me……Have they released the Judges name, or is that “secret” too?

no - you're back to it. You're repeating the same point, MLW member, 'guyser' has already addressed... you even acknowledged '20/20 hindsight'. His analogy should have been clear enough, even for you:

Nice, do you call the lottery office after the draw and ask for a ticket with yesterdays dates and numbers on it? Cuz ya'd win ya know.

You cannot take what he

allegedly

did at Eaton Centre and apply it to a person who , previous to his sex assault charge , only had a pot conviction on his record.

You are taking current events and applying it retroactively to a time and place where none of this had occurred yet.

And to clarify, if a Judge denies bail, is that not a judgement based on possible future guilt? (You and Waldo seem to stumble over that one...)

you were provided the 3 justifications for detention in custody. None of them... none of them... have any relation to or bearing upon the principle being emphasized throughout this lengthy discussion... the principle you repeatedly challenged - the presumption of innocence in regards an accusation charge. Do you still hold to your challenge of the judicial system presumption of innocence principle; or is this, your shifting emphasis on bail, your undeclared admission that your challenge to the principle was unfounded/baseless/incorrect?

as for your perceived, 'stumbling', I believe I've ignored your bail distraction, emphasizing it as being just another of the many deflection attempts played out in this discussion... shifting away from the focus on the accusation charge and presumption of innocence principle; the principle you so egregiously abused.

[guyser]

So were back to the (emotional) fact that if the judge/crown had of refused bail to Mr Husbands, the alleged crime he committed, would not have taken place……..

"We" are not back to anything , fact or otherwise. You seem to be on a some sort of fantasy ride. So lets go with it then shall we?

If Stalin's dad wore a condom , he wouldnt be a blight on history.

If Ron Artest wasn't so stupid he would have signed a $21M deal instead of being broke.

I hope you get the idea.

Its seems rather clear cut to me……Have they released the Judges name, or is that secret too?

Its clear cut to you because you are not looking at the facts in their entirety. You are basing your assumptions only on what you want.

Ontario has a very high rate of incarceration for those awaiting trial.

The judge can only make a motion based on what the crown comes to the court with. In this specific case there could have been very little presented by the crown as to why the guy should be held. Maybe the crown didnt oppose bail based on the facts as he knew them (alluding to my earlier post re minor sex assault facts)

The judge doesnt hop off the bench and go research the person standing in front of them.....well not normally anyway.

I do believe the judges name has been said.

And to clarify, if a Judge denies bail, is that not a judgement based on possible future guilt? (You and Waldo seem to stumble over that one...)

I am afraid those still in this conversation are not stumbling, however some (ok one) are grasping at straws for some face save.

Lets ask this question to you....the judge gave Husbands bail ( and judges gave 1000's bail across the country), another judge gave COnrad Black bail......they all must be innocent....right?

Edited June 12, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Derek L]

"We" are not back to anything , fact or otherwise. You seem to be on a some sort of fantasy ride. So lets go with it then shall we?

If Stalin's dad wore a condom , he wouldnt be a blight on history.

If Ron Artest wasn't so stupid he would have signed a $21M deal instead of being broke.

I hope you get the idea.

So, if Judge “X” had not of given Mr Husbands bail, and it’s determined that he did commit the crime, (now) two people wouldn’t be dead and other hurt to varying degrees right? I’m glad we can agree.

ts clear cut to you because you are not looking at the facts in their entirety. You are basing your assumptions only on what you want.

Ontario has a very high rate of incarceration for those awaiting trial.

The judge can only make a motion based on what the crown comes to the court with. In this specific case there could have been very little presented by the crown as to why the guy should be held. Maybe the crown didnt oppose bail based on the facts as he knew them (alluding to my earlier post re minor sex assault facts)

The judge doesnt hop off the bench and go research the person standing in front of them.....well not normally anyway.

I do believe the judges name has been said.

So this “bail hearing fail” could be the fault of police investigators? Fair enough……Obliviously the City of Toronto also failed the public by hiring Mr Husbands to work with children.

I am afraid those still in this conversation are not stumbling, however some (ok one) are grasping at straws for some face save.

Lets ask this question to you....the judge gave Husbands bail ( and judges gave 1000's bail across the country), another judge gave COnrad Black bail......they all must be innocent....right?

Was Mr Black charged with a violent crime?

[bleeding heart]

So, if Judge “X” had not of given Mr Husbands bail, and it’s determined that he did commit the crime, (now) two people wouldn’t be dead and other hurt to varying degrees right? I’m glad we can agree.

Are you saying that nobody should get bail?

Fine, that's an argument worth having...but it's not about this case. It's about all cases.

[guyser]

So, if Judge “X” had not of given Mr Husbands bail, and it’s determined that he did commit the crime, (now) two people wouldn’t be dead and other hurt to varying degrees right? I’m glad we can agree.

Bought a ticket yet for last weeks lottery draw?

So this “bail hearing fail” could be the fault of police investigators? Fair enough……Obliviously the City of Toronto also failed the public by hiring Mr Husbands to work with children.

Could be , could be the Crowns fault, could be the facts of the case are minor.

LOL. No the city didnt fail, the system they set up, the one with the rule you can be hired then in a few weeks or months provide the info, failed. The privacy act does not allow the police to tell the city directly.

Was Mr Black charged with a violent crime?

But think of the children that may be defrauded in the future. I think I will damn that judge now for something that may occur down the road .

If it works for Husbands, it works for Connie.....right?

Edited June 13, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Peeves]

I think the answer is free gun classes for gang bangers so they become expert shots and only shoot one another.

[GostHacked]

I think the answer is free gun classes for gang bangers so they become expert shots and only shoot one another.

That seems to be exactly what happened. From what I can tell it was a targeted hit. The victim was in jail for a previous conviction. Who knows who he pissed off on the inside, but this hit could be due to that victim getting tangled with the wrong people while in jail. Who knows.

This was not a random heat of the moment act, this was deliberate.

[Boges]

So instead of coming down hard perpetrators of gun crime, everyone's favourite lefty, Adam Vaughan went on a Media blitz today saying that, not only guns but ammunition should be banned in Toronto.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/12/vaughan-proposes-guns-and-ammo-ban-for-toronto

Hand guns are highly restricted in Canada and have been for awhile.

Why must Liberals blame legal gun owners for murders caused by people using illegal guns?

Was Mr. Cousins "piece" legally registered? And even if it was, did he have a license to carry it concealed?

Edited June 13, 2012 by Boges

[Guest Derek L]

So instead of coming down hard perpetrators of gun crime, everyone's favourite lefty, Adam Vaughan went on a Media blitz today saying that, not only guns but ammunition should be banned in Toronto.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/12/vaughan-proposes-guns-and-ammo-ban-for-toronto

Hand guns are highly restricted in Canada and have been for awhile.

Why must Liberals blame legal gun owners for murders caused by people using illegal guns?

Was Mr. Cousins "piece" legally registered? And even if it was, did he have a license to carry it concealed?

I’ve got a better idea, why don’t they ban violence, or better yet, crime from Toronto?….When this pilot project proves successful, we’ll spread it across Canada…..

[Guest Derek L]

Bought a ticket yet for last weeks lottery draw?

Is not the act of a trail a revisiting of the past? What about negligence?

Could be , could be the Crowns fault, could be the facts of the case are minor.

LOL. No the city didnt fail, the system they set up, the one with the rule you can be hired then in a few weeks or months provide the info, failed. The privacy act does not allow the police to tell the city directly.

Who made the rule?

But think of the children that may be defrauded in the future. I think I will damn that judge now for something that may occur down the road .

If it works for Husbands, it works for Connie.....right?

Again, how many 13 year olds ended up in Children's Hospital because of Conrad Black?

[guyser]

Is not the act of a trail a revisiting of the past? What about negligence?

What trial ? The one that hasnt been conducted yet? Relevance?

Who made the rule?

The privacy rule? Umm..... The Feds?

Again, how many 13 year olds ended up in Children's Hospital because of Conrad Black?

But think of the future fraud they could be subjected to!

Why do you hate the chillun?

Edited June 13, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Derek L]

What trial ? The one that hasnt been conducted yet? Relevance?

A trial in general…What lottery?

The privacy rule? Umm..... The Feds?

So, perhaps the privacy act should be reopened?

But think of the future fraud they could be subjected to!

Why do you hate the chillun?

Future fraud? I'm talking about actual events.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Derek L

[guyser]

I’ve got a better idea, why don’t they ban violence, or better yet, crime from Toronto?….When this pilot project proves successful, we’ll spread it across Canada…..

Even better, try it where crime is a lot worse, like say the 28 cities in Canada that have worse crime, then we can import it here.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/04/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada-overall-crime-score%E2%80%94by-rank/

[Guest Derek L]

Even better, try it where crime is a lot worse, like say the 28 cities in Canada that have worse crime, then we can import it here.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/04/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada-overall-crime-score%E2%80%94by-rank/

I’m sold……..All three levels of Government within Canada, should ban crime in all it‘s forms, from villages to Cities…

[guyser]

Future fraud? I'm talking about actual events.

You dont understand a simple concept .

One cannot castigate a judge based on what the perp did after she put him on bail when he had only one minor conviction, the crown was fine with it,and there was no reason to jail him based on what the Judge was presented.

Selective arent we?

Best learn the facts about bail, courts and how it works, then come back.

[guyser]

I’m sold……..All three levels of Government within Canada, should ban crime in all it‘s forms, from villages to Cities…

Knock yourself out, stupider things have been tried.

If that floats your boat, give it a shot.

[Guest Derek L]

You dont understand a simple concept .

One cannot castigate a judge based on what the perp did after she put him on bail when he had only one minor conviction, the crown was fine with it,and there was no reason to jail him based on what the Judge was presented.

Selective arent we?

Best learn the facts about bail, courts and how it works, then come back.

I understand them, but I’m failing to understand your reference to Conrad Black in a discussion on the Eaton’s Shooting.

Has Mr Black been accused of this crime?

[Guest Derek L]

Knock yourself out, stupider things have been tried.

If that floats your boat, give it a shot.

You think banning crime is a stupid idea?

Edited June 14, 2012 by Derek L