[Newsbot]

Title: All charges dismissed in West Edmonton Mall water park assault case
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: newz
Date: 2018-07-06 21:56:43
Canadian

[newz]

"there were only a few people in the courtroom of a different cultural background to choose from."
Common sense says this would actually make identification easier but it's 2015 and sunny ways all. Grave miscarriage of justice for the victims and more encouragement to do more of same by those of "different cultural backgrounds". More proof judges need to be elected and not appointed.

[martin14]

It's good to know that the Mall is now perfectly safe to bring your young girls to,
because nothing happened.

[CharlesAnthony]

martin14 martin14:

because nothing happened.

That is probably closer to the truth than anybody realizes.

It all sounds like a media psy-op to get whities to hate on brownies.

$1:

Judge Joyce Lester said it's not that she didn't believe the complainants or whether "something untoward" had occurred that evening, but "I have not received sufficient evidence" that the offender "is the person before me.

"I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and I am not."

[N_Fiddledog]

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

It all sounds like a media psy-op to get whities to hate on brownies.

No. If the media had a vote they'd find it an outrage that the guy was even charged.

If the government had a vote the guy would have been discharged on the grounds of cultural differences. You know? Like what happens in Europe.

One does wonder what it would take to get a conviction in that court though.

Canadian pools and water parks might need more cameras, perhaps underwater cameras in this new age of 'Diversity is our strength.' That's the only conclusion I can come to.

[Thanos]

Either that or, opposed to you who weren't even in the courtroom, found that while the girl's testimony was disturbing it was too scattershot and inaccurate to be convincing and that if the judge found the guy guilty he'd just win on appeal anyway. It was too similar to the Jian Ghomeshi trial where, no matter how ridiculous and possibly even responsible he was, the witnesses were just too unreliable. That's what judges and juries have to decide, how credible is the evidence against an accused. They aren't there to satisfy the political or religious agenda of people who watch too many YouTube videos about the next race war or the upcoming war of mutual extermination against Islam. If that's their priority, either as a judge or juror, then they shouldn't be inside a courtroom to begin with. This is the way legal reality works, not like on the Jeanine Pirro show or Pam Geller's podcast.

All in all the accusations or abuse and harassment by a dozen women against Donald Trump are a lot more convincing yet none of the CKA right-wingers seem to take any of it seriously at all. Now what could the reason for that possibly be?

[N_Fiddledog]

With the CBC one must always consider what they're not telling you.

For example, the police must have known there were multiple men of similar appearance if that's what the judge is implying. Yet they charged the one they did. Why is that?

Isn't the phenomena of varying descriptions between witnesses always a problem? I heard it was. The judge says the fact the sleepover witnesses had a chance to speak to each other may have tainted the testimony. But isn't the problem there that they might have got together to agree on bringing their testimonies too close together - not varied? Or was that the problem? Were the testimonies of the girls at the sleepover dead on close but others varied? Details on that would be interesting.

We're to take the brilliance of this judge's acumen over all others for granted. Would have liked a jury trial on this one, myself.

[Thanos]

You're doing the same thing that Trudeau did in the wake of the Boushie trial, saying that a judge or jury can't be trusted if they don't deliver the decision you want, and that they're obligated to serve a social/political agenda as much (or more) that they're obligated to listen to the evidence and deliver a proper verdict.

[N_Fiddledog]

Well, as you say, I wasn't at the trial. Come to think of it, neither were you.

We're just a couple of guys with opinions. I have questions. You don't. So be it.

[Thanos]

I've done jury duty and know the process. Have you? The first thing you're sworn to is to decide by the evidence only, not our personal biases and beliefs. I might not like a lot of decisions that get made by judges, especially at the Supreme Court level, but that doesn't give me the right to assume that they're doing it because they're crooked or that they're doing it on behalf of the Frankfurt School or George Soros. It's a sign of the runaway intellectual depravity in our silly society and the corrosive nihilism that's wrecking everything now that these accusations are the first things levelled at the justice system whenever a draconian verdict isn't hammered down hard on an unlikable accused.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

I've done jury duty and know the process. Have you? The first thing you're sworn to is to decide by the evidence only, not our personal biases and beliefs.

As I said, I would have preferred 12 upstanding jurors like yourself deciding this particular case.

That's my opinion. But even if I had my way there, I might still have questions.

Hey, you know what would be fun? If you and me were on the same jury together.

[Thanos]

"Shoplifting trial ends in chaos when two jurors try to kill each other, attempted murder charges laid against both".

[newz]

Thanos Thanos:

Opposed to you who weren't even in the courtroom,

You were there?
I'm going by the judges words which said if there are not enough
"people of a different culture" in the police line up a fair trail cannot occur.