Well, I am back from a 2 day vacation.

Earned as per the following

http://forums.cfl.ca/hamilton-tiger-cats/5/well-i-screwed-up/107532/new#new

To respond to taleback in the closed post about Hughes,

Quote from: FootbalYouBet on Oct 18 2018, 11:09 PM

he would probably play him after conviction if he could.
"Sooo, now how foolish do you seem."

no, not foolish at all. I expect it was a combination of pressure from above and the league that led to him not playing. Don’t think Jones would have made that decision alone.

Huh?! That last sentence doesn’t make any sense. It’s up to the defence to create reasonable doubt after the prosecution has presented the evidence against the accused.

Yes, I agree! Once evidence has been presented against an accused, then the ball is proverbially in the accused’s court. It’s up to the defence to present counter-evidence against the prosecution’s claim.

Unfortunately for the accused in such DUI cases, there is invariably strong evidence which would at least at first glance indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was indeed driving under the influence.

Consider. The officer testifies that he noticed the accused driving erratically or unusually slowly. When he therefore pulled the accused over, he noticed that the accused appeared to have been drinking, e.g. he was flushed, bleary-eyed, somewhat disoriented, smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, etc. When asked to leave the car, the accused staggered or at least wasn’t walking normally in a straight line. When given the opportunity to demonstrate sobriety with a breathalyzer, the accused either failed the test or rather curiously refused the opportunity. Why did he refuse the opportunity when it was proferred?

In light of such evidence, it’s therefore contingent upon the accused to undermine the evidence to demonstrate that it was all a mistake and that he wasn’t impaired. Like I say, the ball is then in the accused’s court. That’s the way our system works, and I’m fine with that.

No! That statement of yours is misrepresenting our entire system of jurisprudence.

A person is not called upon to prove he wasn’t drunk while driving at some random arbitrary date. An accused isn’t charged in a vacuum without any evidence against him. The charges are laid only because there’s evidence which would cause a prudent man to think the accused was impaired at that specific time.

Moreover the accused is still innocent UNTIL proven guilty which occurs only when the verdict of guilty is read/spoken in court.

……Is refusing to provide a breath sample when asked by an attending police officer an indication of guilt?..I would say yes and refusal to provide will be difficult to defend in a court of law…You can’t present any defence that would alter the ‘appearance’ of guilt in this case…When all particulars are brought before a judge and considered, refusal to co-operate, in this case with a breath sample, will weigh heavy on the accused when a final judgement is passed down…It won’t be easy for any defence lawyer to convince a judge and defend that appearance of guilt

Yes you can in a way say that but it is not really true

I know its semantics but the prosecution has to prove you did do it…the defence does not have to prove you didn’t

In other words, the defence can sit back and not put on a defence while the opposite is NOT true…The prosecution cannot sit back and do nothing while the defence puts on a defence

Of course it is in the best interest of the defence do so but they are not obliged to do anything, the prosecution is

It’s a strong piece of evidence, that’s for sure. I mean why did the accused pass up the chance to dismiss the matter right then and there?

:-\

All very true. I agree.

:slight_smile:

worse…or not

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/news/broncos-cut-chad-kelly-after-trespassing-arrest/ar-BBOPQio?ocid=spartanntp

Canadian ‘justice’ and the ‘Letter of The Law’ at it’s finest.

Too bad there is no parole that works for the mother so she can get her children back now.