Agreed, but when you catch them on it, you nail them. Or no, you just let it slide because everybody does it? Fact of the matter is, when the crack video news broke the mayor said 'yeah i smoked some rock, big mistake' and went to rehab for 30 days, this would be all over, old news, and he'd be re-elected next year. He didn't, he chose to lie and cover it up, and now it's being exposed how deep his ties to the criminal world really are and he's become a giant disgrace to the city and its inhabitants.
Gawker Claims Video Exists of Rob Ford Smoking Crack
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
Although to be clear and accurate there were due process folks both for and against the Mayor and at least as many, if not more 'He's My Hero' types as 'Lynch Him' ones.
Something like; look at how his "Did I smoke pot? I smoked a LOT" went over. But right from his earliest days on Council Rob clearly demonstrated he listened to no one but his inner voices.
For some folks that's a good thing. It never ever was for Rob.
And clearly brilliantly put. Hit the mark dead on, you sounded so perfectly in character, like any number of posts I've read here. Are they all gonna claim it was sarcasm too, and they really believed in the tape all along?
It's why smileys and Sarcasm Fonts <that's sarcasm> were invented, for the handful of folks like me who might take you seriously.
I don't see Rob Ford's next move.. It seems a lot of Ford Nation (even just here) are realizing that he was likely lying (or that there's only a snowball's chance in hell that he wasn't).
So what's next? Continue denying? Ask for forgiveness? Refuse to speak about it for more than 2 minutes with the press and then simply hide behind some kind of weird shitty line like "I can't comment on an ongoing police investigation"?
I guess it doesn't really matter at this point. There are those in Ford Nation who will stick by him.. But there are likely many more who will feel that the mayor made them look like fools today, and they're going to give their vote to somebody else in 2014 (likely splitting the vote on the right and giving Chow the mayor's seat).
So what's next? Continue denying? Ask for forgiveness? Refuse to speak about it for more than 2 minutes with the press and then simply hide behind some kind of weird shitty line like "I can't comment on an ongoing police investigation"?
I guess it doesn't really matter at this point. There are those in Ford Nation who will stick by him.. But there are likely many more who will feel that the mayor made them look like fools today, and they're going to give their vote to somebody else in 2014 (likely splitting the vote on the right and giving Chow the mayor's seat).
But he has to have it in his possession to be charged with possession, (and there's a long string of decisions that deal with defences like 'I'd already flushed' or 'But it was on the floor'). There's no retroactive version of that crime. So although he's not guilty of any crime because he had some but smoked it, if we know that we know, and can also say he's just as guilty as the kid caught with his first rock, before he even got a taste.
There's the criminal law and then there's real life.
You are joking - right ? Your not suggesting now that the police have joined the rest of the world (with the exception of Ford, his brother and super die-hard fans) in a conspiracy to frame an innocent man ?
Users are seldom charged but it's the pushers who police went after. Ford has actually done them a favour because in quietly following Ford & his video - a gang of Ford's associates have been charged with murder, extortion, drug possession and a host of other gang related crimes.
Anyone who actually believed that those 2 Star reporters and the Gawker editor fabricated the video story deserves to be made to look like a fool.
I don't recall seeing any posts from people claiming he should be charged with possession because of this video. It's not about him being charged with narcotic possession.
I support your point, but still don't know who's saying he should be charged for smoking what appears to be crack cocaine on video.
My fave has always been Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking: "If you had that much, it can only mean you were in business and were going to sell it." Your actual intent is deemed almost irrelevant, and you must prove it was 'innocent'.
But when I used my fake ID to have the LCBO deliver a dozen case of cheap wine to my first apartment, selling never entered my thoughts. I just figured less risk with the ID. Always thought there were likely a good many drug users thinking the same way, who got possession for the purpose busts they didn't deserve.
It's okay to doubt reporters who'd newspaper editor has it in for Ford and Gawker who will pay a blackmailing drug dealer (until some better evidence turns up).
[Note: There was a link on Terb which showed 3 seconds of a video and to me, it looked like a Rob Ford but not exactly so the existence of a video is one thing but to say there's one of Ford is another]
I saw the short fake video you're referring to and it was very obviously a fake. Professional journalists and a respected major newspaper are not going to risk their careers and existence to bring down a mayor they don't like. The reward doesn't come close to justifying the risk. Believing that those reporters and The Star would do such a thing was very foolish.
No, I'm saying Ford wont be charged with possession of crack because cops can't prove its actually crack in his pipe that he was smoking when the video was shotwell groggy was one, I think Phil suggested he had to possess it to smoke it ... read the thread again dude.. you must have missed some
I think you're confusing a discussion over the fine points of the law with claiming whether or not the content of this video would justify criminal charges.well groggy was one, I think Phil suggested he had to possess it to smoke it ... read the thread again dude.. you must have missed some
I was searching for a lawyer's address and found the link to an old school chum who is a criminal lawyer. His site covered many topics including possession for the purposes of trafficking when there may not be any activity of trafficking (just possession of drug paraphanalia that might suggest that, or enough quantity to suggest that as you said).
