My daughter didn't go to school today

[Leafless]

While I'm all for stopping terrorism, I don't think its a good idea to kill people for essentially running their mouths off. By that logic, there are several posters here who wouldn't stand a chance.

Well, then you are not looking for a solution when you are content with the fact you would accept the word of a perpetrator who says the threat he or she made was only a prank.

How can you be so sure it could be a prank when obviously anyone caught red handed making a serious threat relating to mass killings, would more than likely say the same thing to try to avoid any type of prosecution.

So that is my solution, treat the threat as seriously as if it did occur as this is the only preventive action society can take against preplanned terrorism of this type and should serve as an excellent deterrent.

[Guest coot]

So that is my solution, treat the threat as seriously as if it did occur as this is the only preventive action society can take against preplanned terrorism of this type and should serve as an excellent deterrent.

Well, I think they did treat the threat as seriously as one could expect. Your solution doesn't address how in the hell you find out who wrote a note on a bathroom wall last week. Once you provide a solution to that, there's your excellent deterrent.

[Guest coot]

Besides, the list addressed averages, not top achievers. So solly, try again.

Fair enough. On average, your "real" university is the losest-ranked in the country.

[Leafless]

Well, I think they did treat the threat as seriously as one could expect. Your solution doesn't address how in the hell you find out who wrote a note on a bathroom wall last week. Once you provide a solution to that, there's your excellent deterrent.

My solution is relating to a perpetrator that is discovered and apprehended and not relating to a phantom threat written on the bathroom wall of a washroom.

But if my solution was incorporated with known harsh penalties, more than likely that threat would never have been written on the bathroom wall, if one is to value their existence on this planet.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Leafless

[FTA Lawyer]

I never asked the U of W to rate me. No doubt I would have failed the U of W's criteria of mudpacked dreadlocks, glazed eyes, and "I want to fellate Che" T shirt, but I went to a real university in the south end of town, where I managed to eek out an honours degree, first class, in spite of my obvious academic unsuitability. Then it was off to Ottawa to put some distance between me and the odour drifting south from Portage Avenue...

If you are as brilliant as you profess, what possible relevance to the issue on this thread caused you to blather on about U of W students being "2nd rate art fags"? If the university I went to had first rate art fags does that make it better or worse than U of W?

I tend to agree with Guyser (on the actual topic of the thread) that people need to assess risk everyday and that officials should give them the info they need to do so. If there is a bomb threat, I can decide for myself how to react, but surely I need to know about it in the first place.

FTA

[Rue]

How should the threat of campus violence be handled by colleges and universities?

Oh man. Really sorry to hear that. All I can say is the obvious to your answer-as calmly, and rationally as is possible.

In this case the message has to come out, but in a way that does not intentionally or unintentionally cause panic or traumatize kids right?

Do you need to get specific no. There are ways to discuss these things or implement security without unecessarily inflamming and scaring.

In this case parents must know, but then I would hope we allow them as parents to decide how much detail they then pass on to their children.

So for example, my wife was working in a school when some sob pedophile attacked a child in the bathroom and the school was locked down and the pervert ran out.

Do children need specific details as to what he tried to do? Do their parents? No. But they do need to know there was an sob in the school and what is to be done when that happens.

Its a fine balancing act and I think for the most part our schools are trying their best to get the message out without going too far. But you know its a difficult thing isn't it.

Hoepfully as a parent you can assure your child there is some bad stuff out there but you are there for them and they need be aware and vigilante but not live in fear.

I have worked with children once they have been traumatized. What I found is often what traumatized them was there feeling they were not in control and were powerless. Education can give them back some of that feeling of control or power and help them heal but no I wish I could give you an easy answer for what goes into the content of that education.

Its a tough one.

Good luck.

Man I hate this shit. Our kinds just don't seem to be able to get to be innocent anymore.

[FTA Lawyer]

Well, then you are not looking for a solution when you are content with the fact you would accept the word of a perpetrator who says the threat he or she made was only a prank.

How can you be so sure it could be a prank when obviously anyone caught red handed making a serious threat relating to mass killings, would more than likely say the same thing to try to avoid any type of prosecution.

So that is my solution, treat the threat as seriously as if it did occur as this is the only preventive action society can take against preplanned terrorism of this type and should serve as an excellent deterrent.

Leafless,

If you are serious, then I could apply your standard to your proposed "solution" and suggest that we execute you in order to prevent you from going around killing anyone who might utter an angry phrase toward another person or God forbid a public institution.

Oops...have I just signed my own death warrant?...I swear, I was only debating in good faith relying on the concept of democratic free speech...I was not threatening you! Please show me mercy!

Or wait, maybe we should just stick to the idea of only punishing people for their actions not their thoughts...what do you think Mr. Orwell?

FTA

[Rue]

Leafless,

If you are serious, then I could apply your standard to your proposed "solution" and suggest that we execute you in order to prevent you from going around killing anyone who might utter an angry phrase toward another person or God forbid a public institution.

Oops...have I just signed my own death warrant?...I swear, I was only debating in good faith relying on the concept of democratic free speech...I was not threatening you! Please show me mercy!

Or wait, maybe we should just stick to the idea of only punishing people for their actions not their thoughts...what do you think Mr. Orwell?

FTA

Man I better stop thinking about Paris Hilton.

[Renegade]

Obviously this would be after the fact, with the suspect apprehended and proven to be the killer. They don't deserve any kind of a trial.

Hmm, and where would you prove it if not at a trial?

-------------------

If I said "Leafless, God damn you!", would that be a threat and would you infer that I had some kind of influence with a superior being who could actually carry out such an action? Maybe I should be suitably punished for daring to utter such a phrase.

[Leafless]

Leafless,

If you are serious, then I could apply your standard to your proposed "solution" and suggest that we execute you in order to prevent you from going around killing anyone who might utter an angry phrase toward another person or God forbid a public institution.

Oops...have I just signed my own death warrant?...I swear, I was only debating in good faith relying on the concept of democratic free speech...I was not threatening you! Please show me mercy!

Or wait, maybe we should just stick to the idea of only punishing people for their actions not their thoughts...what do you think Mr. Orwell?

FTA

You are poking fun at a very serious situation relating to terrorism. I guess you have forgotten the Air India bombing and how not taking these threats seriously resulted in the deaths of many people.

You sound like one crappy lawyer and seems you don't really want any solution, in case it keeps the cash register from dingling away, defending these morons at tax payers expense.

[Leafless]

Hmm, and where would you prove it if not at a trial?

This is assuming the perpetrator is caught and admitted guilt or apprehended during his killing rampage.

If I said "Leafless, God damn you!", would that be a threat and would you infer that I had some kind of influence with a superior being who could actually carry out such an action? Maybe I should be suitably punished for daring to utter such a phrase.

You are being silly and are disassociating threats relating to terrorism and mass murder.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Leafless

[FTA Lawyer]

You are poking fun at a very serious situation relating to terrorism. I guess you have forgotten the Air India bombing and how not taking these threats seriously resulted in the deaths of many people.

You sound like one crappy lawyer and seems you don't really want any solution, in case it keeps the cash register from dingling away, defending these morons at tax payers expense.

On the contrary, I am poking fun at an individual who has espoused the view that a threat to do something is the same thing as doing it and cannot recognize that some threats are puffery and ought not be met with summary execution without even a trial to make an attempt to differentiate the prankster from the terrorist.

Should we take threats seriously? Absolutely. Should those who issue them be treated severely? You bet. Are most threats legitimate ones that are a fraction of a second from being carried out? Not even close. Would any advanced non-dictatorship adopt your idea and kill on site every person who ever makes a threat? I sure as hell hope not...and not because of any financial self-interest...just because I happen to believe in proportionality and fairness in my definition of justice.

Recently, a very specific and serious threat was made to shoot up a courthouse in Alberta, including a particular statement about killing the judge. The response was to keep two full time armed Sherrifs in the courtroom where normally only one would be present during criminal matters and none during civil matters. Court was not cancelled...the army was not called in...but staff knew of the situation and were on heightened alert.

If they ever catch the guy, should he just be able to laugh it off as a prank? No way...some people were legitimately scared by the threat. Do I want to see him executed for it? No. Fact is, he didn't do it. Death is not proportional or fair for making people scared.

Whether I am a crappy lawyer or not is something that people who know me will be best-placed to determine...and I am sure that there is debate at times. But, I am a citizen and I do have a family and the last thing I would ever hope for is death or serious harm so that I can issue a bill. I bet you would not suggest the same to a police officer who depends just as much as I do on criminals for his livelihood.

Your attempt at a battle of wits on this point has proven to be nothing more than an attempt...and a poor one at that.

FTA

[Leafless]

On the contrary, I am poking fun at an individual who has espoused the view that a threat to do something is the same thing as doing it and cannot recognize that some threats are puffery and ought not be met with summary execution without even a trial to make an attempt to differentiate the prankster from the terrorist.

A threat relating to terrorism via mass murders has the same impact whether written by a prankster or a genuine killer and no one at any specific point would not be able able to differentiate whether the threat is real or false which in fact could be to late, if that threat was genuine.

I have totally no compassion for a prankster emulating the deadly characteristics of a mass murderer.

Should we take threats seriously? Absolutely.

No we don't.

It is obvious we don' have laws that 'bite' when we should.

Would any advanced non-dictatorship adopt your idea and kill on site

What does dictatorship have to do with anything?

Some third world countries are continually accused of this being undemocratic and barbaric relating to the way they handle there form of law and order with what we perceive as unacceptable barbaric actions.

Only problem is they have huge populations to contend with and the lack of resources of all kinds but yet manage to control crime, the best they can with the little resources they harbour.

Well, we also lack the resources as we should have triple or more the amount of prisons in Canada to properly deal with incarnating criminals but don't.

Like it or not, this should open the doors to much harsher laws but amazingly DON'T, so as a result law and order in Canada goes soft and criminals do not pay for their criminal actions and innocent victims suffer.

I happen to believe in proportionality and fairness in my definition of justice.

Incredible!

Currently in this country, due to lack of resources, justice is not proportional as fairness is overextended to the criminals and NOT the victims.

Recently, a very specific and serious threat was made to shoot up a courthouse in Alberta, including a particular statement about killing the judge. The response was to keep two full time armed Sherrifs in the courtroom where normally only one would be present during criminal matters and none during civil matters. Court was not cancelled...the army was not called in...but staff knew of the situation and were on heightened alert.

Ha, ha, ha.

It is obvious the animals are running the zoo and if much harsher laws were to be incorporated this serious threat to shoot up the courthouse in Alberta would probably never be made if the perpetrator knew in advance when apprehended he would be dragged out like an animal and shot immediately, if not already killed during the shootout.

Death is not proportional or fair for making people scared.

Scared as nothing to do with it.

The threat was a direct implication that this person was about to commit mass murders.

If you feel this is frivolous and not to be taken seriously it simply indicates a extremely lax irresponsible attitude, IOW 'WTF can I do about it', it was only a joke.

I bet you would not suggest the same to a police officer who depends just as much as I do on criminals for his livelihood.

Not quite the same.

A police officer works for the city or province as an employee, in the same manner as any other employee.

You are self employed defending criminals in order NOT to properly pay their debt to society, IOW raping the rights away from innocent victims.

I truly hope you feel very proud of yourself.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Leafless

[Guest coot]

You are self employed defending criminals in order NOT to properly pay their debt to society, IOW raping the rights away from innocent victims.

I truly hope you feel very proud of yourself.

He's also defending wrongfully accused people and maintaining the western democratic tradition of protecting these innocent victims from being lynched by irrational nutjobs.

[Leafless]

He's also defending wrongfully accused people and maintaining the western democratic tradition of protecting these innocent victims from being lynched by irrational nutjobs.

Innocent victims?

Give me a break.

The wrongful U.S. conviction rate is .00065% and obviously would would be similar in Canada under 1%.

http://craigread.blogspot.com/2007/04/capi...ocent-myth.html

[Guest coot]

Nevertheless, if you were wrongfully accused of a crime, you'd likely have a very different perspective on defence lawyers, as well as lynch mobs.

[Leafless]

Nevertheless, if you were wrongfully accused of a crime, you'd likely have a very different perspective on defence lawyers, as well as lynch mobs.

No system is 100%.

Let's be clear.

Lawyers primarily benefit by a very wide margin, criminals and work against the innocent victims of criminal acts.

[guyser]

You dont know squat about the law do you? Well join the club then. But at least I dont slam lawyers for repping all peoples rights in a court of law.

Besides, you should have read your own links attachments, whereby a new study showed that 25% of juries sent innocent people to jail, and that the innocent had a 37 percent chance of being wrongfully convicted by a judge.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

Innocent victims?

Give me a break.

The wrongful U.S. conviction rate is .00065% and obviously would would be similar in Canada under 1%.

http://craigread.blogspot.com/2007/04/capi...ocent-myth.html

Wont comment on your stats, no need to.

But I guess if your family members included the following or that your last name was the same as these people, you would change your tune and sing from the rooftops a different tune.

You know , people like Millgard , Truscott, Morin.......?

No mention how the police framed these people? Why the double standard?

[FTA Lawyer]

Innocent victims?

Give me a break.

The wrongful U.S. conviction rate is .00065% and obviously would would be similar in Canada under 1%.

http://craigread.blogspot.com/2007/04/capi...ocent-myth.html

You're damn right that I truly feel proud of myself.

I recently received a letter from the Crown confirming that charges were being stayed against a client of mine. Turns out, the stepdaughter who had accused him of molesting her three times had made it up and finally admitted same to the police just prior to the preliminary inquiry.

This is a guy whose wife left him and didn't have a friend in the world...he would have had a slug in his brain stem if you had your way based on the ALLEGATIONS made against him...instead, as a defence lawyer I helped him find some form of justice in clearing his name.

I've helped people who were abused by bad police officers, got compensation from the Crown for a client who was the victim of an improper prosecution, had convictions overturned in a case where even the Crown agreed that the judge acted unfairly (and put the accused in jail for 4 years), helped keep mentally ill people out of jail, helped police officers keep their jobs in the face of disciplinary proceedings etc. etc. etc.

Many people only dream of being able to have such meaningful impact on people's lives...and I have the privilege of doing it every day I go to the office.

You're damn right that I truly feel proud of myself.

FTA

[Leafless]

Besides, you should have read your own links attachments, whereby a new study showed that 25% of juries sent innocent people to jail, and that the innocent had a 37 percent chance of being wrongfully convicted by a judge.

Your links study is only based on 290 non-capital criminal trials with no reasons as to why mistakes were made by judges or jury.

These 290 out of 100,000 criminal trials in the U.S. per year is not representative of the overall system.

"Spencer hopes to find funding for a much larger study whose results could be representative of the overall system."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

Wont comment on your stats, no need to.

But I guess if your family members included the following or that your last name was the same as these people, you would change your tune and sing from the rooftops a different tune.

You know , people like Millgard , Truscott, Morin.......?

No mention how the police framed these people? Why the double standard?

There is no double standard.

It is simply a matter of relying on facts and evidence to obtain a conviction on a suspect who like most other suspects in criminal cases SCREAM INNOCENT no matter if they are truly guilty.

Not a very nice job to accomplish and the only thing I can tell you is to grow up, face the realities of the best criminal system society can provide and thank your lucky stars that you are not living in one of these countries where if you are merely considered a suspect, you are promptly eliminated.

[Leafless]

You're damn right that I truly feel proud of myself.

I recently received a letter from the Crown confirming that charges were being stayed against a client of mine. Turns out, the stepdaughter who had accused him of molesting her three times had made it up and finally admitted same to the police just prior to the preliminary inquiry.

This is a guy whose wife left him and didn't have a friend in the world...he would have had a slug in his brain stem if you had your way based on the ALLEGATIONS made against him...instead, as a defence lawyer I helped him find some form of justice in clearing his name.

I've helped people who were abused by bad police officers, got compensation from the Crown for a client who was the victim of an improper prosecution, had convictions overturned in a case where even the Crown agreed that the judge acted unfairly (and put the accused in jail for 4 years), helped keep mentally ill people out of jail, helped police officers keep their jobs in the face of disciplinary proceedings etc. etc. etc.

Many people only dream of being able to have such meaningful impact on people's lives...and I have the privilege of doing it every day I go to the office.

You're damn right that I truly feel proud of myself.

FTA

Ahem, cough, cough, I am glad to acknowledge that you have the ability and can predetermine and recognize that you only represent the GOOD innocent clients and not the BAD guilty clients.

[FTA Lawyer]

Ahem, cough, cough, I am glad to acknowledge that you have the ability and can predetermine and recognize that you only represent the GOOD innocent clients and not the BAD guilty clients.

Well that's the whole point bozo...I believe in the system that we have because it serves to protect the "GOOD innocent clients" even if it is not immediately apparent which ones they are. The spinoff is that even "BAD guilty clients" will be afforded the benefit of reasonable doubt and a fair trial. I'd much rather have that over your proposal to shoot everyone in the back of the head summarily...

If you don't want me up on a soapbox reporting the good side of what I do for a living, then don't accuse me of raping the rights of innocent victims so as to help criminals not pay a societal debt...that's not what I do. And at the end of the day, I simply refuse to be embarrassed for the valid public purpose I serve as a defence lawyer just because you can't quite comprehend the justice system that we have developed over the last few centuries.

FTA

[Leafless]

The spinoff is that even "BAD guilty clients" will be afforded the benefit of reasonable doubt and a fair trial. I'd much rather have that over your proposal to shoot everyone in the back of the head summarily...

If that is what you believe, good for you.

"Not shooting everyone in the back of the head," I said TERRORIST associated with mass murders caught in the act and even ones that write threats should be taken very seriously like this dunce in St.Louis who is now being held on a $1.1 million dollar bond.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/spec...B5?OpenDocument

If you don't want me up on a soapbox reporting the good side of what I do for a living, then don't accuse me of raping the rights of innocent victims so as to help criminals not pay a societal debt...that's not what I do.

That is what you do, ""BAD guilty clients" will be afforded the benefit of reasonable doubt and a fair trial."

You must think Canadians are a bunch of idiots to believe that the vast majority of criminals worry about receiving a fair trial. They want a 'not guilty verdict' and that is what they are paying you for.

And at the end of the day, I simply refuse to be embarrassed for the valid public purpose I serve as a defence lawyer just because you can't quite comprehend the justice system that we have developed over the last few centuries.

I can comprehend the justice system quite well, such as those found innocent in the latest blood scandal, O.J. Simpson and a host of others who make the so called legal system nothing more than a bad joke in many cases.

And I know what a defense lawyer can be compared to, a corrupt loud mouthed politician in a black robe. The more you pay the more they bend the facts, all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Leafless

[FTA Lawyer]

Leafless,

The problem that you really seem to have here is with the concept of the presumption of innocence. As far as you are concerned, if John Law lays an allegation, the person is nothing but a criminal who certainly does not deserve any opportunity to say otherwise.

In your world, the state authorities can do no wrong. You have obviously no legitimate experience with the system or you would know that the biggest "bending of the facts" often comes from the police. And if you think for a minute that Crown prosecutors don't put their own spin on things to try to make evidence look more compelling and to make an accused look more guilty then you are being obtuse.

If you understood any of this, you would get that we have an adversarial system which has proven to be a pretty reliable and fair way of administering justice for hundreds of years. The state, with its immeasurable resources does its level best (within the limits of the law) to get the evidence and take liberty away from the accused. In response, the defence does its level best (within the limits of the law) to counter the state's efforts and keep the accused free.

When both sides fight the best fight possible, at the end of the day, we (society) can trust in the result because we know that everyone's interests have been argued to the fullest.

You choose to call what I do "raping innocent victims". I call it making sure that people sent to jail actually belong there. When I put my spin on it, you call me "corrupt" and "loud mouthed". I guess that makes you a hyperbolic simpleton.

Just because you don't understand why O.J. Simpson and those accused in the recent "tainted blood" case were acquitted, doesn't mean that the system is corrupt or unjust.

FTA

[Leafless]

The problem that you really seem to have here is with the concept of the presumption of innocence.

The only problem I have here is an incompetent system of law and order being exploited by willing defense layers.

In your world, the state authorities can do no wrong. You have obviously no legitimate experience with the system or you would know that the biggest "bending of the facts" often comes from the police.

Police have a hard time making charges stick and then are confronted by people like you armed with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, accusations of racial profiling or or pinpointing technicalities that have nothing to do with the crime in order to get their clients off the hook.

This is on top of a dysfunctional system of law and order that is drastically underfunded where police do not even have the resources to enforce municipal by-laws much less conduct a competent investigation in more serious crimes.

If you understood any of this, you would get that we have an adversarial system which has proven to be a pretty reliable and fair way of administering justice for hundreds of years.

In this country, currently our system of law and order is broken.

Do you not understand that.

Do you not understand people like you are exploiting our system of law and order for personal profit.

When both sides fight the best fight possible, at the end of the day, we (society) can trust in the result because we know that everyone's interests have been argued to the fullest.

How can that be when the system of law and order is underfunded and dysfunctional, crippling the powers of the Crown?

You choose to call what I do "raping innocent victims". I call it making sure that people sent to jail actually belong there. When I put my spin on it, you call me "corrupt" and "loud mouthed". I guess that makes you a hyperbolic simpleton.

More big words coming from the mouth of a lawyer.

Just because you don't understand why O.J. Simpson and those accused in the recent "tainted blood" case were acquitted, doesn't mean that the system is corrupt or unjust.

Relating to the 'tainted blood case' it would appear that the acquittal is a successful fraudulent cover up to avoid the payout of large sums of money to innocent victims.

And Americans who think O.J.Simpson was guilty was a staggering 77%.

However, an NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of blacks in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites. Whatever the exact nature of the "racial divide," the Simpson case continues to be examined through the lens of race."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

Edited October 4, 2007 by Leafless