Rob is right...most Canadian police departments only have access to the internet during the summer months. There's about a 65% chance they won't be able to get online at the time of any potential investigation, anyway. It sounds ridiculous but all Canadian police internet traffic is routed through a central server system at RCMP HQ, and speeds are slow; maybe 2-3 mbps tops, and when the snows drift up, forget it...internet research is not happening.
If they do manage to get the uplink working, frankly I have said enough outlandish things that if that's the worst thing they can find before the snowdrifts block out the satellite dish, I am pretty much golden as far as I'm concerned.
This is a thread where I built a boat I designed and which I very occasionally update with accounts of using it, which is really fun as long as I'm not driving over logs and blowing up the outboard.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ilding-a-skiff
Huh?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-11-10-13-00
You can consider other charges now?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
I heard a bit on the radio yesterday where the judge, over repeated objections by Z's lawyer, kept trying to get him to say if he planned to take the stand. It was bizarre.
How is this person a judge? Has she heard of "right to remain silent"?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
ETA: This seems to be a desperate attempt to convince the public that they've thrown the book at him and missed in order to reduce the inevitable riots that were instigated by the media and activist tards...
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
Adding "child abuse" as a potential charge after the defense has rested, and not been given any opportunity to present evidence against this charge ... seems like immediate grounds for appeal if convicted on said charge.
What's acceptable re: allowing new charges to be considered so late in a trial?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
You'll note my original comment specified "suit". I wasn't taking the chance on something as optional as undergarments. It would have to be a whole style ensemble to justify shooting somebody.
I would never kill someone just to find out about underwear. That's CRAZY!
Flawless, sub-moa fit and finish...all day long.
This is a thread where I built a boat I designed and which I very occasionally update with accounts of using it, which is really fun as long as I'm not driving over logs and blowing up the outboard.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ilding-a-skiff
Not at all unusual to allow the jury to consider lesser included charges.
Also not really unusual for a judge to question a defendant regarding his actions to make sure he understands what he is doing. Note that was done without the jury being present.How is this person a judge? Has she heard of "right to remain silent"?
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"