Nah, Idaho just arrested 31 far righters. You got to sweep the scum off the street.Cities also apologized for arresting BLM.
Next riot it’s a free for all
Cities Drop Most Charges Against BLM Protesters as Cops Fail to Provide Evidence
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
They should arrest BLM before they riot as well. Why don’t they? Why do they drop charges? Go ahead and act dumb with your red font
This has all been discussed in another thread, cuck. Guess you didn't follow that discussion.
The cops made mass arrests to clear the streets back in 2020. Two years later, they don't want to commit all the manpower to take all those charges to trial. Some arrestees were probably bystanders who were just swept up. And some arrestees were actually disobeying police instructions, but the cops were too busy to take and keep notes. Two years later, it's all pretty irrelevant anyway and not worth the trouble to go to trial. So all those charges get dropped. Same thing happened with a lot of the arrests in the Toronto G-8 riots.
That "dumb" enough for you to follow, cuck?
There are the frauds again. Any tie i say anything. the reply is that I don't know. So then I find someone who actually does know. Then the frauds come up with BS arguments saying things like he is "clearly trying to boost his career" as if our fraud somehow knows the details of this.
That is how the frauds work folks. No matter what evidence you give that actually answers their reasoning, they come up with a higher and higher standard.
You get told that you have no law experience so you get a law professor's comment that backs you up and the reply is....she is an extremist.
Ignore the frauds like mandrill who will release violent criminals ready and willing to kill you.
Mandrill is a fraud and the above is exactly why.
Along with the pathetic lies he made about the criminals shot by Rittenhouse not being criminals. You are a lying fraud as well.
It only would have saved a couple of lives if they had kept the old rules.
Something that clearly doesn't interest Mandrill.
So I gave you the actual Supreme Court decision, which pretty much proves that the reasoning in that case isn't in any way related to what that law professor claims and you couldn't follow the Supreme Court's reasoning and avoided talking about it. So you look pretty bad on that.
The rest of the stuff?... 10,000+ decisions are made in the justice system every day by prosecutors, bail court judges, appeal judges, parole boards, etc. All of them are very fact specific. Unless you know all the facts, you don't understand the judgment. Neither you nor I know the facts of any of those decisions - unless the decision is a judgment and released in a reported case.
These are not "MY" decisions. I don't have a dog in any of those races. But I can point out how you misunderstand what's involved in those decisions. It won't stop you, but it makes you look stupid.
5 months in a work camp is a standard hit for a teen driving case. And the ADA is clearly looking for political support. That's why he's on TV giving an interview. DA offices have a "TEAM" approach to their work. If someone breaks with the team, it means he's got political ambitions and he's prepared to be a prick to the other DA's..... He's an asshole in other words.
The Crown could appeal that MB parole Board decision and get a stay on the release. It didn't. That's probably because the decision is reasonable.
I don't "support" any of these decisions, aside from thinking it's pathetic when someone who doesn't understand much about law tries to use these decisions to make an argument. The MB Parole Board has no connection with a DA in LA. And neither has any connection with the Supreme Court of Canada.
Those aren't the "old Rules". There's always been bail, parole and plea bargains. They're part of the system.
You have to be pretty stupid not to know that.
People who are getting sexually assaulted do have 'a dog in the races'. The ACTUAL supreme court justices are a group of people that think they can call the constitution a Living Tree which is a scam that allows them to change things into their own personal favour, coming up with excuses to justify those changes which just happen to align with their beliefs.
Being way smarter than you(remember....having common sense and having knowledge are two completely independent variables), I am well aware of these parts of the system. But a system can be managed with laws, notwithstanding clause laws that use common sense. Common sense is that we don't care one bit about plea bargains. parole, and bail if it puts people that have been determined to be likely to be violent again back on the street.
Common sense is obviously something you don't have, even if you can pass a test of memorized items with a higher score than me.
You seem like the kind of person that might think that an idiot savant who has pi memorized up to a thousand digits to be smart enough to make policy because he is so smart. So feel free to quote me your knowledge of details about the justice system. You aren't giving any justice to innocent victims.
Actually in Canada, no one uses that term. The Canadian constitution is only 40 years old and was drafted in the modern era where all the current legal issues were already known. It's not like the US constitution which was drafted in the 1700's.
Why do you use that coloured emoji to front like you’re black? Because we all know you’re not especially living up to that username.Cities also apologized for arresting BLM.
Next riot it’s a free for all
Don't you just love the frauds. They run around saying that that I lack knowledge about the constitution or law or court judgements or whatever it is and then when I show my knowledge by stating how the supreme court uses the Living Tree concept, the frauds blather(in their fake attempt to appear knowledgeable) that they know something about constitutional law. Foolish people might believe if I don't expose this.
So here you go Mr. Fraud that says 'no one in Canada uses the Living Tree' term. And I quote directly from the Supreme court of Canada itself....and how they feel it applies to our charter of rights and the constitution:
" To continue to insist upon the restrictive significance of the placement of s. 7 within the “Legal Rights” portion of the Charter would be to freeze constitutional interpretation in a manner inconsistent with the vision of the Constitution as a “living tree”. Furthermore, in order to ground a s. 7 claim, it is not necessary that there be some affirmative state action interfering with life, liberty or security of the person."
"To evoke Lord Sankey’s celebrated phrase in Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), at p. 136, the Canadian Charter must be viewed as “a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits”: see Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, at p. 180, per McLachlin J. It would be a mistake to regard s. 7 as frozen, or its content as having been exhaustively defined in previous cases. In this connection, LeBel J.’s words in Blencoe, supra, at para. 188 are apposite:
We must remember though that s. 7 expresses some of the basic values of the Charter. It is certainly true that we must avoid collapsing the contents of the Charter and perhaps of Canadian law into a flexible and complex provision like s. 7. But its importance is such for the definition of substantive and procedural guarantees in Canadian law that it would be dangerous to freeze the development of this part of the law. The full impact of s. 7 will remain difficult to foresee and assess for a long while yet. Our Court should be alive to the need to safeguard a degree of flexibility in the interpretation and evolution of s. 7 of the Charter."
"To now continue to insist upon the restrictive significance of the placement of s. 7 within the “Legal Rights” portion of the Charter would be to freeze constitutional interpretation in a manner that is inconsistent with the vision of the Constitution as a “living tree” which has always been part of the Canadian constitutional landscape. As this Court recognized in Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, at p. 180:
The doctrine of the constitution as a living tree mandates that narrow technical approaches are to be eschewed . . . . It also suggests that the past plays a critical but non‑exclusive role in determining the content of the rights and freedoms granted by the Charter. The tree is rooted in past and present institutions, but must be capable of growth to meet the future."
Gosselin v. Québec (Attorney General) - SCC Cases (lexum.com)
What does all this mean folks. It means the activist judges will interpret as they like, supposedly reflecting their view of what our society wants. And there are something like 30 supreme court rulings where this is used.
Mandrill, give it up. I repeatedly prove you to be a fraud.
Whatever, buddy. I hope you enjoyed the hour or so you spent looking that up.
Time well spent.
Folks, this isn't the first time I have proven Mandrill to be a lying fraud. It happens every few days.
Here is the last time. Oh, and he had a similar response(note to Mandrill....I already knew this legal interpretation from the supreme court from years ago. That is why I started discussing it. It did take a further couple of minutes to find the online proof to back me up).
Folks, don't believe the frauds on the left.
Czar KNOWS what he is talking about.
And yes Mandrill, I am still having fun.
Last edited:
You had to go back 20 years to find one example?
Kinda kills the idea that its a common thesis.
LOL.
I left after my post and never saw your demand.
I wouldn't have taken it seriously, anyway, because you're not a serious person.
That said, she would actually be a really interesting person to have a discussion with on the nature of the carceral state and the Canadian legal system.
We should split a bottle of wine and do that.
Basically, you're wasting time - and mainly your own.
At the beginning, you at least focused on a debatable issue - the "woke" SF DA's office. You had little or no idea what you were talking about, but at least you raised issues.
Since then, you've decided that the Supreme Court of Canada is woke as well because they use "living tree" terminology. But mainly you use the thread to insult and troll other people - like I pointed out a couple of pages back. You're no longer trying to make any real points or have a discussion, just insult and troll people.
So have fun. Why would anyone even take the time to read your posts. They're nonsense.
