Castanet

Found guilty...interested to see what his sentence will be. Hope he does some serious time!

GordonH wrote:

GordonH wrote:The law of Canada which covers from the Pacific to Atlantic to Arctic oceans.

Green-light wrote:says who?

Okay, who says not to follow the laws of this country.

those that recognize that "this country" is invalid and therefore do not recognize it as such

alanjh595 wrote:His record goes back to 2003.
Is 14 years worth enough evidence to be of poor character?

Not when it isn't representing 14 years of infractions or offenses, nope.
I've had speeding tickets spaced years apart. That doesn't make me a "speeder".

LordEd wrote:Two people making the same action in the same spot should have the same consequence.

If he truly believed he was outside the law, why even hide the guns?

Because he knows about the secret path of least resistance. Pretty simple logic.

Old Techie wrote:
Do you have a proof of purchase for this bike in order to confirm ownership?

I mean if we're going to go the devil's advocate route then anyone can copy down a serial number. That doesn't mean they own the item in question.

If that were the case I could run down to the local car dealership and take down a few VIN numbers.

The situation isn't quite as cut and dried as you make it sound.

The bike in your example was originally not purchased but rather found, hence it could be said that possession is nine tenths of the law, but the same applies to anyone owning land now, though they actually have a deed.

The bike was stolen. I witnessed it being stolen. Let's just say I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bike was stolen. Let's also say that my "receipt" for the bike is carved into rock and painted on cave walls.

Are you going to face the truth of what is right versus what is wrong, or are you going to try to dance around your dwindling flicker a bit more?

The situation is exactly as cut and dry as I make it sound. There is only one right answer and one wrong answer.
To attempt to complicate a very simple and logical piece of truth, does nothing more than take away your own credibility.

It really is that simple, and you and I and everyone else knows it.
I say we name it.
The big white elephant.
Let's call it Shame.

GordonH wrote:The law of Canada which covers from the Pacific to Atlantic to Arctic oceans.

Green-light wrote:says who?

GordonH wrote:Okay, who says not to follow the laws of this country.

Green-light wrote:those that recognize that "this country" is invalid and therefore do not recognize it as such

Please explain how Canada is an invalid Country... which countries are valid if any then.

Let's try a different example, to test the level of complication:

Let's say that Gordon pushed you off of the roof of a high rise building, and Sam fired a bullet from the 4th floor window, and striking you directly in the heart.

Who should be held responsible for your death?

just another scumbag criminal. Lock him up.

GordonH wrote:Please explain how Canada is an invalid Country... which countries are valid if any then.

I also would like to hear the answer to that question too. Very Interesting.

GordonH wrote:

GordonH wrote:The law of Canada which covers from the Pacific to Atlantic to Arctic oceans.

Green-light wrote:says who?

GordonH wrote:Okay, who says not to follow the laws of this country.

Green-light wrote:those that recognize that "this country" is invalid and therefore do not recognize it as such

Please explain how Canada is an invalid Country... which countries are valid if any then.

Exactly. If Canada is invalid, I guess all those cheques this First Nations individual cashed are invalid also....he should just return the money....