:embarassed: & :biggrin1:
As long as you don't confuse me with one.of.a.kind... who, I believe, is long dead and buried?
Perry
Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
As long as you don't confuse me with one.of.a.kind... who, I believe, is long dead and buried?
Perry
LoL
I haven't been following the case, nor this thread too closely, but I have a question. Sorry if it's already been debated.
Gomeshi was charged with sexual assault. Why was it sexual assault if he just grabbed their necks while kissing, or hitting them behind the head. I though sexual assault was trying to get into someone else's pants and/or groping at sexual parts without consent. If they happened to be kissing at the time (whch would have been consensual) and he grabbed their throats (not consensual), wouldn't that just be assault or aggravated assault? Is kissing now considered sex, and an act of violence during kissing considered now sexual assault?
I had listened to Gomeshi's Q radio show, and I always found him to be arrogant and full of himself (an asshole if you want). But given what I know (which may be incomplete or incorrect), I would throw out the case on the grounds that there wasn't a sexual assault..... only plain assault. Of course, if he had been charged with common or aggravated assault instead of sexual assault, that wouldn't have brough on as much the media attention that we're seeing now, in the form of all the spicy details of taboo sexual practices.
Gomeshi was charged with sexual assault. Why was it sexual assault if he just grabbed their necks while kissing, or hitting them behind the head. I though sexual assault was trying to get into someone else's pants and/or groping at sexual parts without consent. If they happened to be kissing at the time (whch would have been consensual) and he grabbed their throats (not consensual), wouldn't that just be assault or aggravated assault? Is kissing now considered sex, and an act of violence during kissing considered now sexual assault?
I had listened to Gomeshi's Q radio show, and I always found him to be arrogant and full of himself (an asshole if you want). But given what I know (which may be incomplete or incorrect), I would throw out the case on the grounds that there wasn't a sexual assault..... only plain assault. Of course, if he had been charged with common or aggravated assault instead of sexual assault, that wouldn't have brough on as much the media attention that we're seeing now, in the form of all the spicy details of taboo sexual practices.
I think is the key phrase. Fortunately people aren't convicted on other people's imagination, they are convicted on evidence and in this it hasn't been credible. Listen to Perry not to Hamilton Burger.
It ultimately depends on the scales of justice, which way they will tip. Justice is not blind or is it? The verdict in this case has the potential to be very powerful legally, socially and politically. It would be more interesting if this trial had a jury.
It would be a dog and pony show if it were a trial by jury.
Regardless of the evidence, you would get some members of the jury voting to convict, or acquit. Trial by judge alone makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
I'm not a lawyer or a judge but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. For what it is worth, here are my comments.
I think that a judge has to apply a strict interpretation of the law.
A jury has the flexibility to nullify a bad law or in some cases a good law.
Example 1: In 1800's England, 220 crimes were punishable by death. The laws were changed when juries refused to convict because the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Example 2: "In 1976 the Parti Québécois took power. They realized that the abortion law could not be enforced if juries would not convict"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler
Jurys can be composed of idiots.
Case in point - Guy Paul Morin.
Before advances proved him innocent, he was convicted by a jury. I remember watching the 5'th Estate a long time ago and they were doing an analysis of the case which included interviewing jurors and this one momster type says that she knew he did it because he instincts told her so. That when he was on the stand, he didn't make eye contact with the jury and so she KNEW he did it. Never mind the evidence, never mind the lack of evidence, or the entire trial process (let alone that the cops framed him and the crown supressed evidence that he didn't do it), she convicted him based on her instincts.
That my friends is why if you should ever find yourself charged with murder, you are in a shit load of trouble.
Case in point - Guy Paul Morin.
Before advances proved him innocent, he was convicted by a jury. I remember watching the 5'th Estate a long time ago and they were doing an analysis of the case which included interviewing jurors and this one momster type says that she knew he did it because he instincts told her so. That when he was on the stand, he didn't make eye contact with the jury and so she KNEW he did it. Never mind the evidence, never mind the lack of evidence, or the entire trial process (let alone that the cops framed him and the crown supressed evidence that he didn't do it), she convicted him based on her instincts.
That my friends is why if you should ever find yourself charged with murder, you are in a shit load of trouble.
There are pros and cons with the jury system. One safeguard is that lawyers for both the Crown and the defense have to agree on the jury selected. Another safeguard is judge overrule (at least in the U.S.).
"In general, a verdict of "innocent" cannot be overturned, while a verdict of "guilty" is overturned through procedures other than having the trial judge override the jury's decision. A judge cannot overrule a decision by a jury that came about in a legal way."
Well, that means you are now qualified!
Just call The Law Society and ask for the date of your call to the Bar.
BTW, if you were in a premium room and fucking some really hot chick, then you will be called egregia cum laude!
Perry
Also known as the "fuji standard of evidence".
If it walks like a creep, talks like a creep and quacks like a creep, then goshdarnit it must be a creep
I believe this to be a very sound statement. The fact is there were three women who had the courage enough to slam this degenerate
knowing full well what they were up against. Three not one, speaks volumes of this guy's true being. Not really sure what the motivation would
be other than they were subjected to violent acts from this character. Never let yourself be fooled by these predators, they walk amongst us.
His silence says it all.
I have experienced jury duty, it was probably one of my most en lighting experiences. For the cause, yes I would
voice my opinion on this guy, all the rest in the jury, only have to listen to me. But I would listen to rebuttals as well. If their sound
I would then rethink my opinion. In this case, its pretty straight forward, this guy is a predator who has deep rooted issues
with women. If you can't see that. Well give me a reason to think otherwise.
http://www.travelweekly.com/Charlie-Funk/Did-you-stay-at-a-Holiday-Inn-Express-last-night-
Since I slept at a Holiday Inn last night I would acquit. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bar for putting a human being in prison is set very high and should be set very high.
Since I slept at a Holiday Inn last night I would acquit. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bar for putting a human being in prison is set very high and should be set very high.
