Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Really? That's your rebuttal?


"Yes, Your Honour, my client sexually molested five children but, to be fair, let's consider all of the children he didn't molest."

HONESTLY, I have a hard time believing that any moderately sentient judge would take the above argument seriously. Sure, the Convoy tormented the citizens of Ottawa for three weeks, but hey, businesses that sold "Fuck Trudeau" banners and Nazi flags and air horns made out like bandits. So, it's all good, right?

Sadly, from what I've seen, this particular judge is, in fact, that dense.


Anonymous said...

"Yes, Your Honour, we openly admit that our clients were responsible for three weeks of living hell for residents of downtown Ottawa; on the other hand, Canadian Tire made a killing selling jerry cans so it's all good, right?"

Anonymous said...

"Sure, Your Honor, my client robbed a bunch of liquor stores. On the other hand, he made sure the income for local hookers and drug dealers was up significantly."

Anonymous said...

"If that evidence was to be called..." That's "were to be called," Mr Greenspon. I thought lawyers needed at least a working knowledge of English.

Anonymous said...

You should be the Judge.

Anonymous said...

It's basically the whiney faux-victim argument the convoyers make.

Other lawyers have opinions:

That is the defence, but when the crown needs to prove the accused are a party through encouragement, the specific acts of the principle parties because sort of important. The defence objection is not a legal one, it is tactical stage management.

Lawrence is a great guy and a friend, but by his logic we can call all the people who were not murdered to show the lack of harm caused by an alleged murderer.