[flagged]
[flagged]
Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
41–50 of 318 posts
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#42Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly around the kids in the street. It probably is dangerous [0] because people don’t let their kids play in the street anymore so drivers aren’t used to having them there. Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games going and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to be playing in the street so didn’t drive like complete lunatics. Can’…
From reading the decision and looking at Google Maps: the street is a short, narrow dead-end street in the suburbs. Most of the people who live there have young children who play together. It would be very difficult to accidentally find yourself on this street, driving quickly. Of course, it's dangerous in the sense that anything to do with cars is dangerous. But it seems pretty safe as far as these things go.
I live in a much more built up area than this. Mostly small apartment buildings, duplexes and three-deckers. The odd single-family home, usually on the small side. People here still let their kids play in the streets. Not the youngest kids or the busiest streets, but it's not at all unusual to see some kids kicking a ball or playing hockey in the street, or just tooling around on bikes going nowhere.
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all the police did was investigate, then their conduct would have been fine. But they arrested him, and that is not adequate conduct.
On the one hand, knowing what we know now, I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested. On the other hand, the neighbour had made at least 4 reports to the police about harassment and death threats. I believe the neighbour's brother and parents had also spoken to the police in support of these claims. On the day of the arrest, the neighbour had _just_ made the most serious claim yet--about death th…
Hum... No, it's not ok for the police to arrest somebody only due to claims. It doesn't matter how often the claims are repeated.
Maybe the police should have investigated it earlier, but lack of that earlier investigation is not cause for arresting him.
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#45[flagged]
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Especially please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar—it's easily avoidable and particularly poisonous.
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#46> according to the objective video evidence, they drive dangerously near the children as a way to protest their presence and express their discontent.
They should countersue for that!
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#47If you look past the headline, this story is almost "basic sanity". The guy's neighbour didn't want the accused's kids playing in the street (in the suburbs) because they have a yard. To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly around the kids in the street. The accused flipped him off and (allegedly because he denies it) threatened him. Now frankly, I don't see why this would be hackernews-worthy,…
> To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly around the kids in the street. It probably is dangerous [0] because people don’t let their kids play in the street anymore so drivers aren’t used to having them there. Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games going and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to be playing in the street so didn’t drive like complete lunatics. Can’…
If you vacate the space, you're responsible for the consequences.
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all the police did was investigate, then their conduct would have been fine. But they arrested him, and that is not adequate conduct.
On the one hand, knowing what we know now, I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested. On the other hand, the neighbour had made at least 4 reports to the police about harassment and death threats. I believe the neighbour's brother and parents had also spoken to the police in support of these claims. On the day of the arrest, the neighbour had _just_ made the most serious claim yet--about death th…
The kind of person it takes to make 4(!) official complaints and have the local police office in their contact list is exactly the same person to exaggerate dramatically, play the victim, and ultimately be the true source of anti-social behavior. I don’t believe there’s any veracity behind their claims, and the police department should have forwarded their calls to a therapist instead.
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#49I admit, it's long. But the ending was brilliant.
"In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal case “being thrown out”. Obviously, this is little more than a figurative expression. Cases aren’t actually thrown out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do not have windows.
A mere verdict of acquittal will have to suffice."
Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules
#50> according to the objective video evidence, they drive dangerously near the children as a way to protest their presence and express their discontent. They should countersue for that!
More like
>[3] To most, this scene represents a blissful snapshot of a suburban utopia. Peaceful, friendly community life.
[4] Yet, to the complainant and his family, this is an unbearable nuisance. An affront on many levels. So much so, that according to the objective video evidence, they drive dangerously near the children as a way to protest their presence and express their discontent.[..]
it reminds me of South Park, the episode where they go to Canada.
Everyone : " Welcomes friends to Canada Canada friends loves you "
Scott : "What the hell is going on ?"
Everyone (screaming and running away) : Scott ! It's Scott !
When you reach this level of being ridiculed on worldwide news, you don't need to be sued. Counter-suing Scott would be like shooting at the ambulance !