The Obligatory Mantler Trial Thread

[MAPearce]

Blah , blah , blah..... argue this all you want , but every one ,with the exception of goat boy of course , knows that somewhere in this story lies the truth..

I won't believe Bhatti and DON"T believe the cops ,but some where there is the truth ...but who cares I think we all know enough about Mantler and the crap that follows him to honestly know that "We don't want him around here"....

I know I don't...

With out him , the rest of the "membership" can go back to spinning lies with a faint chance that someone will believe it ..

[goatboy]

Blah , blah , blah..... argue this all you want , but every one ,with the exception of goat boy of course , knows that somewhere in this story lies the truth..

Ah, what wisdom you impart. Somewhere in this story lies the truth. How enlightening. Not sure where you see me not agreeing that the truth is somewhere in this story (Can't be any other way, can it?). You are right though, the truth is he either did it or he didn't. Evidence presented in court was far from conclusive that he did. Unfortunately too many people, yourself included, don't seem to really care about the truth. Lucky for you, the perception you get about someone based on reading these boards may not necessarily be reality.

[Captain Awesome]

I've read the story about this Batti guy today, and almost died laughing. Lots of credibility coming from this fella.

[my5cents]

First off, I must say I didn't attend the trial, so I'm only going on press reports, which can be very skewed or inaccurate.

The guilt or innocents of Mantler will boil down to two words, "reasonable doubt".

The judge will say that there is evidence that Bhati was hit, but there is reasonable doubt that Mantler is guilty.

Welcome to the real world.

Any previous or subsequent actions of Mantler, real, imagined, or video'd can't be taken into account to determine his guilt on this matter. The judge must weigh the evidence presented that is relevant to only this incident.

Unlike the "trial" you will receive when you are pulled over for a traffic infraction in the future, this is how our system is meant to work.

[MAPearce]

I've read the story about this Batti guy today, and almost died laughing. Lots of credibility coming from this fella.

Indeed Capt. About as much credibility as Mantler's "I didn't see anything" partner.....

[goatboy]

Indeed Capt. About as much credibility as Mantler's "I didn't see anything" partner.....

This statement just about sums up your ignorance and wanton hate of the RCMP. You have absolutely no evidence or proof that his partner is not telling the absolute truth. You probably don't even know who he is. When questioning someone's credibility, one should look in the mirror first.

[lsj777]

The only way to get to the truth is by giving everybody that testified and both parties a lie detecter test .

[MAPearce]

*try again without the personal attack/Jo*

[goatboy]

Wake up gitboy....Mantler has made the news for three assaults,one that was caught on video. You can't honestly think that he is being framed by someone....

Wait..I bet you do. Sadly you fail to recognize that he's probably the author of his own demise through his "bully" type attitude and we all know that cops have been caught lying under oath at inquiries about corroborating their stories....

Your cop hater drivel only shows your true colours..

Made the news for 3 "alleged" assaults. First one that comes to court, evidence presented is thin at best. Now I know you had already convicted him, but if you were to consider only the evidence presented in this case, is Mantler guilty? Gonna be pretty hard to answer that one yes. Could he be? Sure, but do you want to judge someone on "could be"? As far as cops lying, I'm sure there are a few welders that have done questionable things, should I judge you based on what others in your profession have done? You have no facts whatsoever to judge Mantlers partner as a liar. The ONLY reason you do is because he's an RCMP officer.

And me calling you a cop hater is definitely me showing my true colours, no argument there.

[crookedmember]

I wish I had gotten front row seats to the trial; it must have been a hoot.

The accused himself didn't take the stand. Apparently he was unable to tell the court he didn't hit the guy.

The second officer does take the stand and instead of saying his partner didn't hit the dude, he says he was too busy observing the inside of the cruiser's trunk to notice. "I see nothing! I hear nothing!"

The most credible witness was a crackhead. Jesus.

It's sad how a couple of rogue officers can drag a whole force down with them.

[Symbonite]

would we be saying somehtng different if infact the guy with the gun actually shot someone and then Officer Mantler kicked that guy in the face.

We would be saying something like Hero and good job...

Let the Courts decide...not the public..

[goatboy]

I wish I had gotten front row seats to the trial; it must have been a hoot.

The accused himself didn't take the stand. Apparently he was unable to tell the court he didn't hit the guy.

The second officer does take the stand and instead of saying his partner didn't hit the dude, he says he was too busy observing the inside of the cruiser's trunk to notice. "I see nothing! I hear nothing!"

The most credible witness was a crackhead. Jesus.

It's sad how a couple of rogue officers can drag a whole force down with them.

First rule in court, don't put the accused on the stand unless you absolutely have to. Obviously defence council felt that there was no need to put Mantler up there based on the evidence presented by Crown. You of course give no thought to the fact that maybe his partner actually didn't see anything and is telling the truth? No, of course you didn't. I'm sure if he had said "he didn't hit him" you'd be calling him a liar for saying that as well. The only thing he could have said that would have made you happy was "I saw him hit him", regardless if that was the truth or not.

[FreeRights]

Nope, sorry. Don't need courtroom facts. I *totally* base my opinion re the probability that Mantler smashed this guy in the face on the fact Mantler has a history of allegedly smashing people in the face and is currently suspended without pay for being caught on video allegedly smashing someone who was on the ground in the face with his boot.

If it walks like a duck . . .

You on the other hand are making the assumption that because the smashee is a drug user, he must be lying and wouldn't have known if he was allegedly smashed in the face.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not actually how our court and jury system works.

A person can have an extensive history of assault or whatever, but if the Crown is unable to prove without reasonable doubt that the specific incident of charge that you, as a juryman, are there for, then you would be shaming yourself, this country, and the courts by presenting anything but an innocent verdict.

Taking into account an individual's past and automatically assuming that the current charge is true, then that is a despicable abuse of power. Based on those comments, I don't think you deserve to ever sit in a position of authority and judge another person again.

You on the other hand are making the assumption that because the smashee is a drug user, he must be lying and wouldn't have known if he was allegedly smashed in the face.

Another example of your gross misunderstanding of the courts.

It isn't black and white - for vs against. Those of us who may not think Mantler's guilty (I desist making a statement, as I have not followed the trial closely enough), it isn't because the other individual is a "crackhead". It is because the evidence that we are aware of does not prove within reasonable doubt that Mantler was the assailant.

The fact that you even view this trial as either for punishing an obviously guilty, corrupt cop, vs hating crackheads so it doesn't matter what happens to them (both positions you've already clearly presented) reflects your lack of ability in this sort of position.

[FreeRights]

First off, I must say I didn't attend the trial, so I'm only going on press reports, which can be very skewed or inaccurate.

The guilt or innocents of Mantler will boil down to two words, "reasonable doubt".

The judge will say that there is evidence that Bhati was hit, but there is reasonable doubt that Mantler is guilty.

Welcome to the real world.

Any previous or subsequent actions of Mantler, real, imagined, or video'd can't be taken into account to determine his guilt on this matter. The judge must weigh the evidence presented that is relevant to only this incident.

Unlike the "trial" you will receive when you are pulled over for a traffic infraction in the future, this is how our system is meant to work.

I agree that is what should happen.

What I predict happening is going to be a guilty verdict for Mantler, with a reasonably low punishment.

They're very likely going to make a little bit of an example out of Mantler in order to show that the RCMP does convict those who act unethical; the Canadian Forces operate in similar ways. The Navy member who is being charged with providing secrets to another nation is only all over the news because the CF wants to portray this sort of activity.

[crookedmember]

Um, Freerights dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I stated that it is MY OPINION that the assault in question took place because I GET TO CONSIDER STUFF THE COURT CAN'T. Stuff like a video of a middle aged man getting kicked in the face.

The court may very well let him off this time. Next time might be harder, though.