Shooting at the Eaton Centre

[Guest Derek L]

this is funny to you? Did you or did you not call the guy a "sexual offender"? Multiple times... with comment you leveraged off those false words of yours. Did you or did you not? Yes or No?

does your current MLW status message reflect upon your back-peddling? Yes or No?

own your words! All of them... not just the ones you wish to play out your standard silly-buggar act!

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?

[waldo]

Well we’re at it, care to highlight, as you allude to in your defence of the accused Eaton Center shooter, the passage in which I stated him a convicted sex offender Waldo?

Cleary, as attested to in the Star passage quoting his father, he has a history of violence……..He’s been charged with a sexual assault………And now one count of first degree murder and six counts of attempted murder, 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"?

[Signals.Cpl]

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"?

Mr. Husbands is violent isn't he? I mean he proved that a few days ago or did you miss the whole thread?

[Guest Derek L]

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"?

Would you not classify Mr Husbands as violent? He did allegedly shoot seven people, killing one……..Was he not charged with a sexual assault? And after being charged with a sexual assault (As a sidebar, do you not consider sex crimes as violent Waldo?) hired by the City of Toronto to work with children…….And this is ok with you Waldo?

You feel it business as useful that some one charged with a sexual assault, coupled with a violent past, be released on bail? Then get a City job working with Children?

[waldo]

As a sidebar, do you not consider sex crimes as violent Waldo?

sidebar! No, in the construct of our discussion, this discussion, it is not a... sidebar? Yes, someone convicted of a sexual crime could be violent... was the person being discussed convicted of a sexual crime - convicted, or just charged? Convicted by you, apparently!

is there a reason you're avoiding answering the following questions?

Perhaps you could qualify a distinction between your use of the words "violent sex offender" and... "convicted sex offender"? What's your distinction between the two phrases? In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

[gunrutz]

sidebar! No, in the construct of our discussion, this discussion, it is not a... sidebar? Yes, someone convicted of a sexual crime could be violent... was the person being discussed convicted of a sexual crime - convicted, or just charged? Convicted by you, apparently!

is there a reason you're avoiding answering the following questions?

Supposing we agree that the accused was only charged with sexual assault but is guilty of the shooting, why does it matter so much that he wasn't convicted? Ok, he was under house arrest, and has a drug conviction, accused of sexual assault, we don't know anymore details, but he has a history, and now he's shot some people, i think the likely hood of some violent tendencies being visible before the shooting is fairly high. The idea of him being asked to work with children is insane in my mind. You seem to have a personal stake in this process, i know you're only attacking the wording of another poster, but as inflammatory as that might have been you're need to somehow defend this person or the system that put him under house arrest and allowed him to work with children instead of staying behind bars to await trial seems to be overzealous. The system isnt perfect, but i think its fair to say that it was pretty imperfect in this situation, 7 people have been shot as a result, and this guy was working with kids? Im not OK with that, regardless of how i feel about the justice system, that was indefensible before this shooting.

[Guest Derek L]

sidebar! No, in the construct of our discussion, this discussion, it is not a... sidebar? Yes, someone convicted of a sexual crime could be violent... was the person being discussed convicted of a sexual crime - convicted, or just charged? Convicted by you, apparently!

is there a reason you're avoiding answering the following questions?

Care to highlight the passage in which I stated him a convicted sex offender? Clearly my second reference on the bottom of page 7 says he was charged.

None the less you chastise myself for a perceived glib approach to this subject, yet you’re the one mincing over sentence structure of an internet forum poster (Without highlighting where I stated he was convicted), and you appear without the slightest concern over the actions taken by Mr Husbands over the weekend, or potential past actions that saw him charged with sexual assault (amongst other things). To say nothing of a criminal justice system that released him on the public, law enforcement that failed to monitor him and a City that hired him to work with children.

Waldo, for shame.

[waldo]

Waldo, for shame.

the shame is your sham! Answer the questions... is there a reason you keep avoiding these questions? Is there a... problem? Do you have a... problem?

is there a reason you're avoiding answering the following questions?

Perhaps you could qualify a distinction between your use of the words "violent sex offender" and... "convicted sex offender"? What's your distinction between the two phrases? In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

[Guest Derek L]

the shame is your sham! Answer the questions... is there a reason you keep avoiding these questions? Is there a... problem? Do you have a... problem?

Clearly a convicted sex offender is one serving sentence. As to violent sex offender, is not all sexual based crime violent?

[waldo]

Supposing we agree that the accused was only charged with sexual assault but is guilty of the shooting, why does it matter so much that he wasn't convicted?

supposing we agree? There is no supposition involved. The assault is alleged - only. The fundamental premise of our judicial system is founded on the presumption of innocence in criminal matters - everyone is innocent until proven guilty... no matter how hard MLW member 'Derek L' attempts to blur squash that foundation. That premise, that foundation, that principal, applies to anyone... no matter how hard MLW member 'Derek L' attempts to cloud and obfuscate while overtly manipulating for his personal agenda.

[waldo]

As to violent sex offender, is not all sexual based crime violent?

what does this question have to do with the individual being discussed? Just answer the following questions... quit avoiding the following questions - answer them!

Answer the questions... is there a reason you keep avoiding these questions? Is there a... problem? Do you have a... problem?

is there a reason you're avoiding answering the following questions?

Perhaps you could qualify a distinction between your use of the words "violent sex offender" and... "convicted sex offender"? What's your distinction between the two phrases? In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

[Guest Derek L]

supposing we agree? There is no supposition involved. The assault is alleged - only. The fundamental premise of our judicial system is founded on the presumption of innocence in criminal matters - everyone is innocent until proven guilty... no matter how hard MLW member 'Derek L' attempts to blur squash that foundation. That premise, that foundation, that principal, applies to anyone... no matter how hard MLW member 'Derek L' attempts to cloud and obfuscate while overtly manipulating for his personal agenda.

Shall we mosey back on through the RoboCall thread Waldo?

[Guest Derek L]

what does this question have to do with the individual being discussed? Just answer the following questions... quit avoiding the following questions - answer them!

Why I already did:

Clearly a convicted sex offender is one serving sentence. As to violent sex offender, is not all sexual based crime violent?

[waldo]

ahhh yes, there it is... there's the fog of 'Derek L' distraction, deflection, denial and deceit rolling in. Disgusting!

just answer the questions:

Perhaps you could qualify a distinction between your use of the words "violent sex offender" and... "convicted sex offender"? What's your distinction between the two phrases? In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

[Guest Derek L]

ahhh yes, there it is... there's the fog of 'Derek L' distraction, deflection, denial and deceit rolling in. Disgusting!

just answer the questions:

Right above your post ^

[waldo]

Right above your post ^

your answer has nothing to do with the accused being discussed.

In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

[Guest Derek L]

your answer has nothing to do with the accused being discussed.

In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

Pardon? If convicted, one is no longer accused.

Your line of questioning leaves much to be desired and reeks of amateur hour……Don’t give up your day job hey!

[waldo]

Your line of questioning leaves much to be desired and reeks of amateur hour……Don’t give up your day job hey!

answer the question... the following question:

In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

do you accept this statement... the following statement:

The fundamental premise of our judicial system is founded on the presumption of innocence in criminal matters - everyone is innocent until proven guilty...

[Guest Derek L]

answer the question... the following question:

do you accept this statement... the following statement:

Come on Waldo, you’re almost there!!! You speak of the assumption of guilt in our legal system, but under what auspices may a judge deny an accused person bail? Is that not in of itself an assumption on the part of the judge?

[Guest Derek L]

Come on Waldo, why might an accused person be denied bail…….Under what grounds?

[waldo]

You speak of the assumption of guilt in our legal system

no - I spoke on the presumption of innocence.

The fundamental premise of our judicial system is founded on the presumption of innocence in criminal matters - everyone is innocent until proven guilty...

just answer the questions:

answer the question... the following question:

In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

do you accept this statement... the following statement:

The fundamental premise of our judicial system is founded on the presumption of innocence in criminal matters - everyone is innocent until proven guilty...

[Guest Derek L]

IS your Googly failing you?

A freebie:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-287.html#h-166

Justification for detention in custody

(10) For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;

( where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and

© if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including

(i) the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,

(ii) the gravity of the offence,

(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and

(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

Looks to me the Judge that sent him home shit the bed.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

no - I spoke on the presumption of innocence.

just answer the questions:

So what is the judge doing when he or she is denying an accused person bail? Would you consider that an assumption of innocence?

[waldo]

as you deflect and distract away!

oh wait... was this accused individual denied bail? Oh my! Just what was your free googly all about, anyway?

just answer the questions:

answer the question... the following question:

In what 'Derek L' world do you equate "charged" with your use/designation of the phrase "violent sex offender"?

do you accept this statement... the following statement:

The fundamental premise of our judicial system is founded on the presumption of innocence in criminal matters - everyone is innocent until proven guilty...

'Derek L'... if you were charged with sexual assault... would you be a "violent sex offender"?

[Guest Derek L]

as you deflect and distract away!

oh wait... was this accused individual denied bail? Oh my! Just what was your free googly all about, anyway?

just answer the questions:

'Derek L'... if you were charged with sexual assault... would you be a "violent sex offender"?

I, unlike Mr Husband don’t have a history of prior violence nor a criminal record, but if charged with a sexual assault and put into a remand facility, I’d most certainly be treated as a sex offender and put into protective custody, so yes, I could be considered a violent sex offender.