And that's your answer.Not only can they seize the gun (Evidence), they MUST secure the gun as a matter of public safety.
And that's your answer.Not only can they seize the gun (Evidence), they MUST secure the gun as a matter of public safety.
And that's your answer.
I was willing to entertain a reasonable conversation because it's an interesting case involving a new entity, if you would refer yourself to my original post, unfortunately the alleged brilliance and competence begins and ends with personal shots. So, yeah. Lazy and stupid is all you deserve and probably the limit of your understanding.LOL!
No, that is your answer.
Like in Politics, you seek out any confirmation to your bias to prove to others you were right from the beginning. No matter how remote or irrelevant you dream up. In this case, you draw your legal presumptions from too many episodes of US TV crime drama.
Obviously, oagre has more legal knowledge and courtroom experience than you. He is a highly experienced lawyer. Yet, you claim he "does not have the brains for this conversation".
And by my rudimentary analysis of the facts as presented, it seems that I have some knowledge of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The notoriously "lazy and stupid" defence lawyer seemed to recognize and (successfully) argue a Charter breach.
The Judge's analysis and decision seems to be well founded.
That leaves you... and possibly Big Sleazy (if he drops by) who are too smart for everyone else.
I was willing to entertain a reasonable conversation because it's an interesting case involving a new entity, if you would refer yourself to my original post, unfortunately the alleged brilliance and competence begins and ends with personal shots. So, yeah. Lazy and stupid is all you deserve and probably the limit of your understanding.
I don't dish it out to anyone who doesn't deserve it. But, it is undeniable that I can come across as rough, at times, as English is not my first language.Sorry for the ad hominem.
From your posts (including this one I am replying to) I just thought that mutual personal insults were required in discussions with you.