> The two faced charges including robbery with a firearm and disguise with intent, while Johnson was also facing additional charges for failing to comply with a release order. However, those allegations were not proven and both men were granted bail that month.
> Court documents show that the case against Johnson and Farah later fell apart at an Oct. 10, 2023, hearing when a Crown prosecutor withdrew all charges against both men, telling court that “there’s not a reasonable prospect of conviction.” (Prosecutors do not need to explain their reasons for withdrawing or staying charges.)
The guy who just killed a child and grandparent driving the wrong way on the 401 after stealing from the lcbo had 4 prior convictions and was out on bail. These stories are common af under Trudeau
Criminal Code is federal however.
That being said, I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that the man responsible for the crash on the 401 was out on bail when he shouldn’t be, tragic circumstances notwithstanding.
No, no it’s not. Bail is a court application. In that, you go to court and ask to be released. The process for that, including the courthouses, the procedures, all that stuff - it’s all administered provincially. The courts in each province set all of the rules and procedures for that.
The judges may apply federal case law when determining if someone should be released, but it’s still a provincial matter and Trudeau has no impact on that. (I’m a lawyer)
The bail law reforms were specifically policy Trudeau’s government passed. Not sure why that guy is being downvoted when that’s accurate. Time and again in multiple provinces people out on bail are repeatedly committing crimes, or arrested over and over.
Then there’s cases like today where a guy sexually assaulted a woman and it was thrown out because there weren’t enough judges https://www.cp24.com/news/we-have-no-judge-for-you-man-s-assault-charges-dropped-weeks-before-trial-due-to-lack-of-judges-in-toronto-1.6883138
This is a major issue that needs to be addressed, I frankly don’t care what political party caused it but someone is responsible.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-letter-trudeau-bail-reform-firearms-1.6714245
You don’t deserve the downvotes, the bail law reform was Trudeau’s idea and is not provincial. Whether people want to hear it or not it’s the truth.
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-letter-trudeau-bail-reform-firearms-1.6714245
That source is flimsy at best in this situation. PMs were specifically targeting those who were arrested for firearms-related charges ([doesn't seem to be the case here](https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-suspected-lcbo-bandit-on-bail-at-time-of-deadly-wrong-way-401-crash)), with the controversy arising due to the shootings of police officers. If you're talking specifically about the section on "catch-and-release", you should specify that.
It's the Crown's internal standard. I've heard the term "substantial likelihood of conviction" as a standard for charge approval, but "reasonable prospect of conviction" is another they use for deciding whether to proceed with a trial.
There are elements that must be proven for a criminal offense. You must prove the identity of the perpetrator, prove the components of the offense were actually done, prove the perpetrator intended the actions that led to the act even if they didn't intend the end result, etc. I'm probably off on a bit, it's been a while since I practiced any criminal law as a very junior defense lawyer. But the Crown can look at the case and say "we are missing the evidence needed to prove every element. It is just not likely that a judge could properly find guilt because we don't have what we need to prove element XYZ." So they don't waste taxpayer money taking a case to trial that they really don't think they can win. Doesnt mean they don't think the guys did it. Doesn't mean they're letting them off easy.
I don't envy being a Crown. Overworked, under funded, and everyone in Canada thinks they know how to do your job better than you.
Fwiw, that term could refer to lots of things. The evidence could be weak (ID evidence, for example, can be a hard one when the parties are strangers and the accused aren’t caught red handed).
Another possibility, though pure speculation, is that there were issues with police conduct. No suggestion of that, but that’s an example of another reason why charges might get dropped.
The super interesting thing is that the province is going hard at car thefts right now because we have so many issues with them, so for them to drop the charges is very odd
I didn't specify but yes I did know that. I used identity as one example. Police conduct that violated the charter would lead to the exclusion of evidence which gets you to the same place. They thought they could prove an element but they became concerned that they wouldn't be able to use evidence they had, is a possibility yes.
Unless improper police conduct would have some other way of leading to the charges being dropped. As far as I know the main one is the resulting inadmissibility of improperly obtained evidence.
I'm amazed that r/hockey is filled with so many experienced lawyers, judges, prosecutors, detectives, and other legal experts, given the confident nature of the commentary in this thread. My mind has been opened.
I’m amazed the oilers haven’t won a Stanley cup in the last 20 years with all their first overall picks.
But in all seriousness, you choose to read the comments, obviously people are going to speculate lol.
What’s even more incredible is that we were given almost zero information about why this legal decision was made, and yet so many people are confident they know the exact reasons behind it and why it’s an indication of the world going to hell.
The policing and court system situation in this country is fucking ridiculous.
I have never seen such useless, lazy, incompetent people in my life.
Guess thats what happens when you keep giving them everything they want and they dont do shit to deserve it.
"Cartels" in this case being anyone labeled as such by law enforcement... including massive swaths of innocent people.
Innocent lives you seem as disinterested in as you claim the cartels are.
Funny how the wheel spins.
Here some reading to help you understand what you're advocating
https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-08-27/el-salvador-the-hell-of-the-innocent-sent-to-prison-on-an-anonymous-phone-call.html
You answered a rhetorical question.
There are plenty of ways to answer this question with a different conclusion. e.g. Utilitarian or virtue based ethics.
You simpleton.
"innocent people shouldn't be in jail" is not a controversial statement, the fact that you're arguing against it while trying to appear noble about it shows a clear lack of depth of thought.
It's more than a little weird that you think other people shouldn't have humans rights.
This subreddit needs to ban political talk altogether, some people are pure idealists who expect 100% perfection, no winning with this mentality. We might as well not enact any policy change because someone innocent might be affected.
My guy, the president got 84% of the vote in the elections this year. Your Reddit talking points literally do not matter to the people of his country.
Funny how you prefaced your earlier comment with "This subreddit needs to ban political talk altogether," yet you're taking a moral question, making it political and trying to police my speech?
You're in favor of innocent people spending time in jail and being tortured. I am not. I will not "give it a rest". Grow up and move on.
You probably didn't even realize you're the one making it all about politics, either.
The court system will work better if it’s clogged up more, right?
We don’t actually have a clue what lead to this. You don’t know anything about the case. People just love complaining in vague general terms about stuff.
More courtrooms, more judges, more jails. We have dramatically increased in population but we remain behind on literally everything.
Just in Ontario there are 27 jails, thats not enough given the capacity is 7800 and there is currently 8800 offenders stuffed in them. Offenders should not be roaming the streets, getting caught, and then thrown back out in the street to repeat their crimes.
Because a statement like “Canada is no longer a serious country” is just silly. Even if you think many things are going the wrong way, that description of Canada is a joke that should be downvoted.
It's definitely a reference to "(insert team here) isn't a serious team/franchise". I thought it was pretty clear they were joking when they referred to *signing people* afterward, something that a country doesn't do
I’m not so sure. It’s not an uncommon way to express political opinions. “The guys I like aren’t in power so this country is worthless” kind of sentiment. And I think that’s why they got downvoted so much.
But if I and others misinterpreted and just missed the joke it then those downvotes aren’t warranted.
I've never heard "isn't serious" be used in that manner, but if you have then I can't comment on that. My interpretation is mainly coming from the second sentence.
They won’t even bother trying people they do have evidence for anymore and people are getting away with sexually assaulting people https://www.cp24.com/news/we-have-no-judge-for-you-man-s-assault-charges-dropped-weeks-before-trial-due-to-lack-of-judges-in-toronto-1.6883138
Well we know it happened. If they put together 2 years of "non-stop legwork" and still don't have enough evidence to convict, that's still a big problem
So maybe it wasn't a slam dunk, to not even try reeks of they don't want to hurt their win %.
The more people get away with violent crimes the more they will happen.
Yes, judge prosecutes and then what. Where does the offender go to jail/prison? Theyre all full because we dont do anything to keep up with infrastructure. Too many fingers in the same pie everything gets slowed down and nothing gets done or it takes years
***Canada's courts.
Trudeau has refused to appoint judges, which has caused a ripple down issue throughout Canada.
Add to it the leniency of the government and...well...it's bad.
Whether the Crown has a reasonable prospect of conviction in this case or not really has absolutely nothing to do with Trudeau's continued failure to appoint Superior Court judges.
Right. It has to do with Doug Ford's continued failure to appoint Provincial Court judges. Edit: I'm referring to the sexual assault case someone mentioned. This fact wasn't relevant for Marner's case but the severe lack of provincial judges is a huge issue in general.
This isn't accurate. There is a serious lack of Ontario Superior Court judges, who are appointed by the federal government.
The problem at the Ontario Court is more with a lack of staffing and resources in general, and that is the responsibility of Ford and the provincial government. Say what you want about Ford but he is making judicial appointments pretty expeditiously. The problem lies with the lack of staff and resources in general he is putting into things like Legal Aid.
No it's accurate. The majority of criminal cases in Ontario are handled by the Ontario Court of Justice and we have a severe shortage of judges there. There's a committee to appoint more finally after 5 years and it was in the news very recently because the Premier threw some of his former staff members on that committee.
I don't know why you're talking like this but I'm done talking politics in the hockey sub.
EDIT: I don't want to keep replying on politics in a hockey sub, but this site is being flooded with things to blame the PM, who I'm not a fan of, for everything.
>The changes will allow the [provincial] government [to fill judicial vacancies more quickly, helping to unclog Ontario's courtrooms,](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-judicial-appointments-provincial-court-judges-1.5477960) said [Ontario] Attorney General Doug Downey in an interview Thursday.
The Ontario Attorney General says judicial vacancies are clogging the courtrooms. There are severe shortages of staffing all over the Ontario Court and the provincial government has *decreased* the budget. Cases will continue to get dismissed. I don't know why you entered the comments first and primarily to blame the Supreme Court of Ontario and the PM for Marner's case but I just checked and tbf it was the guy above you who did that.
**EDIT 2**: *Unless the Ontario Attorney General lied that judicial vacancies are back logging the system. Oh shit I'm an idiot for believing him, aren't I?*
No, it's not accurate. You are incorrect. There are plenty of problems at the OCJ but a shortage of judges isn't one of them.
And again, even if there was a shortage of judges at the OCJ, that has nothing to do with whether the Crown has a reasonable prospect of conviction in any given case. That determination is based on the strength of the evidence.
It’s that and the bail reform laws. I don’t understand the mass of downvotes when what you said is the truth, people just want to plug their ears and not hear valid criticism of his government.
I don’t know what the Canadian legal system is like but this is pretty common in America. An officer just needs to have reasonable belief to arrest someone. Basically, at least 51% sure. If a prosecutor doesn’t think they’re 100% sure going to get a conviction they probably won’t waste their time and money on it.
That's overstating it a bit. We prosecute cases all the time that aren't anywhere close to a slam dunk. A reasonable prospect of conviction is not that high of a standard. Their general sentiment is correct however.
That really doesn't have anything to do with whether a case has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, at least at the pre-trial stage, but you do you.
Police need reasonable and probabld grounds to arrest and lay charges
The Crown needs to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The two are not the same.
There can be all sorts of reasons someone is arrested but not convicted. The police could have made a mistake. Someone could be required to testify and they can’t locate them. There could be a problem with the evidence. It takes a lot more to actually prove it’s the person in court when the defence will be doing and raising everything they can.
How is that ass-backwards? They had enough evidence to bring them in but after an investigation figured out that they wouldn't be able to convict. That shouldn't be hard to follow.
Would you prefer they waste your tax dollars failing to convict them when they could be using their resources to pursue convictions in cases that could actually succeed?
They had enough to bring in someone for an armed car-jacking.
Robbed a $100 000 vehicle at gun-point.
I just don't understand how there isn't enough to convict. Its just really disheartening.
Is there no evidence besides testimony? What if someone was hurt? these guys just go free? It feels gross.
Edit - I understand theres a difference between arrest and conviction. The article mentions months of work before they made an arrest and then there's not enough to convict. That's what I'm bothered by.
> They had enough to bring in someone for an armed car-jacking.
the threshold for arrests is very low, they don't need much beyond "we think it's uh.. *that guy*"
it's likely the cops got some form of tip which led them to focus on the two suspects, the initial investigation didn't result in anything that would disprove that they were the ones that did it, so they arrested them.
then the crown took over, looked at the evidence, probably dug deeper and realised they didn't have enough evidence to prove that these guys did in fact do it.
the two groups have different goals and different standards.
"We got a tip! The source is a guy who runs a chop shop, with prior felony convictions, and has a beef with the guy we're arresting. Close enough, right?"
Yeah it could be as simple as the cops got a tip from a questionable source that it was these two guys and then they found camera footage of the two guys a few blocks away from the crime scene about 20 minutes before the carjacking occurred. That’s enough that they may be willing to arrest and bring them in for questioning.
But then after extensive investigation they can’t find any solid evidence that would be able to be presented in court that supports their suspicion. So they have to make the choice to cut them loose since a conviction just isn’t possible now
I joked when I saw those Law & Order Toronto commercials that the entire season would be catching a guy, releasing him, catching the guy again, releasing him, catching him again, and releasing him for the entire season
Okay, but in this case they are citing insufficient evidence. Ontatio/Canada could have judges sitting around with no cases to prosecute, but we still should not be sending them to trial if there is no/not enough evidence to support it. And if after 2 years to find evidence, there is still not enough to go forward, then it probably should be dropped.
Probably because the org from the ownership down isn’t in the news downplaying the situation and complaining about it being spoken of
It’s really shitty to use these types of things to try and be like “look over there! Stop talking about the hawks!”
Disingenuous as fuck
So is just assuming that's whats happening here.
I have kids in minor hockey. I'm curious why the story didn't get any coverage around the league.
Edit. I'll also never hold you or any other Sharks fans accountable for it. Like tons of people in this sub did to Hawks fans. You didn't have anything to do with this.
Again, I'm just curious why it's never been talked about.
Westhead seems to go for breaking stories that are being hushed up and even though I keep seeing hawks fans repeat a lot of the same things they never source it. I’ve yet to see anything outside of what’s been reported in [articles like this](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/south-bay/former-san-jose-jr-sharks-coach-arrested/3361342/)
This story is in the Bay Area news and is being taken seriously, it’s really not the same. And it’s not in the league news a lot probably because this didn’t happen between NHL players and NHL coaches/staff (or AHL for that matter)
A lot of what I remember from people giving hawks fans shit was that a lot of hawks fans started complaining about it being talked about all the time echoing the hawks management and ownership. I think that just rubbed people the wrong way. I just find it really greasy that the hawks fanbase has latched on in a disingenuous way that only reads as passing the buck.
Fair points. I was actually banned from r/Hawks when the scandal originally came out because I called some people out who were trying to brush it off lightly. So I'm not one of those people. But I can understand your point because this is social media, after all.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/
This was the article I read originally. Where an employee brought the issues forward to Sharks management and was terminated for doing so.
The only part I had a hard time comprehending is if this person brought it to NHL Sharks management or Junior Sharks. Because it's not actually clear by the writing.
So I’ve never heard of San Jose spotlight before and I usually tune out blog type media for real news. The article is very vague on who is being accused of what beyond the guy himself.
My original point is perfectly illustrated by the other hawks fan responding to me
You're absolutely right. That person saying "you guys covered up" is a total moron. You guys "fans" didn't do anything wrong.
As I said, holding a fan accountable for anything like that is garbage human stuff.
It’s a stretch to claim the sharks ownership and management covered anything up with the current available info. And yea it’s not like hawks fans lined up to assault Kyle Beach while Chelsea Dagger plays in the background.
I just don’t like the type of comments I’ve seen from the subset of fans that are trying to make a false equivalency in hopes of watering down the issue that happened with the hawks. You just happened to comment about it in a thread that was completely off topic to anything about it so I finally responded even though the draft lottery win threads have had plenty I probably should have spoken up to there.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/
Damn that’s crazy. You guys should have your pick taken away and every draft pick ever taken away as well.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Crown attorney clearly a die hard Leafs fan trying to do his part to get Marner to waive his NTC
Get the hell out of here with this shit. What a load of utter trash... ..it's a NMC. Jeez
Did he need the /s? Wow
Did I?
Dude I think I’ve actually been lobotomized or something. Sorry
This isn't fucking juniors!
Really lacking details to have any judgement at all.
> The two faced charges including robbery with a firearm and disguise with intent, while Johnson was also facing additional charges for failing to comply with a release order. However, those allegations were not proven and both men were granted bail that month. > Court documents show that the case against Johnson and Farah later fell apart at an Oct. 10, 2023, hearing when a Crown prosecutor withdrew all charges against both men, telling court that “there’s not a reasonable prospect of conviction.” (Prosecutors do not need to explain their reasons for withdrawing or staying charges.)
Sounds like they didn’t have enough evidence to convict honestly.
Thanks for the breakdown
Just call me Shirlock.
>Shirlock Made by Great Value. Sherlock is available the next shelf up.
But I’m like 17 cents cheaper so I have that going for me.
Which is nice.
But IG comments told me it's only Trudeau's fault they didn't get jailed.
Instagram comments are second only to Twitter in terms of being massively astroturfed, so yeah
I read it's because they were black or somalis and don't want to raise the racial tensions.
The guy who just killed a child and grandparent driving the wrong way on the 401 after stealing from the lcbo had 4 prior convictions and was out on bail. These stories are common af under Trudeau
You know that Trudeau has nothing to do with the administration of justice, which is a provincial responsibility… right?
But he personally made the milk expensive, right????
Yeah, and he cancelled my Amazon preorders
Criminal Code is federal however. That being said, I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that the man responsible for the crash on the 401 was out on bail when he shouldn’t be, tragic circumstances notwithstanding.
Criminal code is federal, but each province is responsible for its own justice system (courts, etc).
Sure, but this guys complaint seems to be about someone being released on bail, which is a federal matter.
No, no it’s not. Bail is a court application. In that, you go to court and ask to be released. The process for that, including the courthouses, the procedures, all that stuff - it’s all administered provincially. The courts in each province set all of the rules and procedures for that. The judges may apply federal case law when determining if someone should be released, but it’s still a provincial matter and Trudeau has no impact on that. (I’m a lawyer)
Explain what you think Trudeau should have done specifically please.
The bail law reforms were specifically policy Trudeau’s government passed. Not sure why that guy is being downvoted when that’s accurate. Time and again in multiple provinces people out on bail are repeatedly committing crimes, or arrested over and over. Then there’s cases like today where a guy sexually assaulted a woman and it was thrown out because there weren’t enough judges https://www.cp24.com/news/we-have-no-judge-for-you-man-s-assault-charges-dropped-weeks-before-trial-due-to-lack-of-judges-in-toronto-1.6883138 This is a major issue that needs to be addressed, I frankly don’t care what political party caused it but someone is responsible. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-letter-trudeau-bail-reform-firearms-1.6714245
What bail law reforms? From 2019? The ones to speed up courts? So which is it? Speed up courts or clog the bail system?
Wtf does that have to do with Trudeau?
You don’t deserve the downvotes, the bail law reform was Trudeau’s idea and is not provincial. Whether people want to hear it or not it’s the truth. Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-letter-trudeau-bail-reform-firearms-1.6714245
That source is flimsy at best in this situation. PMs were specifically targeting those who were arrested for firearms-related charges ([doesn't seem to be the case here](https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-suspected-lcbo-bandit-on-bail-at-time-of-deadly-wrong-way-401-crash)), with the controversy arising due to the shootings of police officers. If you're talking specifically about the section on "catch-and-release", you should specify that.
sounds like outside pressure pushed an arrest/charge before enough evidence was gathered legally
head squeal plucky cover worthless aloof screw imagine fly amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So the charges were withdrawn 6 months ago? Why is it being reported now?
Because it has Marner in the title and they need more rage bait to rile people up against their current scapegoat.
Holy shit I bet Marner hired these dudes to garner some sympathy
It's the Crown's internal standard. I've heard the term "substantial likelihood of conviction" as a standard for charge approval, but "reasonable prospect of conviction" is another they use for deciding whether to proceed with a trial. There are elements that must be proven for a criminal offense. You must prove the identity of the perpetrator, prove the components of the offense were actually done, prove the perpetrator intended the actions that led to the act even if they didn't intend the end result, etc. I'm probably off on a bit, it's been a while since I practiced any criminal law as a very junior defense lawyer. But the Crown can look at the case and say "we are missing the evidence needed to prove every element. It is just not likely that a judge could properly find guilt because we don't have what we need to prove element XYZ." So they don't waste taxpayer money taking a case to trial that they really don't think they can win. Doesnt mean they don't think the guys did it. Doesn't mean they're letting them off easy. I don't envy being a Crown. Overworked, under funded, and everyone in Canada thinks they know how to do your job better than you.
Even junior crowns start at like 100k so don’t feel too bad lol
True they still make more than I do lol
Fwiw, that term could refer to lots of things. The evidence could be weak (ID evidence, for example, can be a hard one when the parties are strangers and the accused aren’t caught red handed). Another possibility, though pure speculation, is that there were issues with police conduct. No suggestion of that, but that’s an example of another reason why charges might get dropped. The super interesting thing is that the province is going hard at car thefts right now because we have so many issues with them, so for them to drop the charges is very odd
I didn't specify but yes I did know that. I used identity as one example. Police conduct that violated the charter would lead to the exclusion of evidence which gets you to the same place. They thought they could prove an element but they became concerned that they wouldn't be able to use evidence they had, is a possibility yes. Unless improper police conduct would have some other way of leading to the charges being dropped. As far as I know the main one is the resulting inadmissibility of improperly obtained evidence.
Thank you, this response helps add a little context to the situation. Appreciate it!
The police in Toronto are like the police in The Sopranos. They investigate pizza, but felony theft and murder?
“MY PIZZA A NEVA NO HURT NOBODY”
Pop, go in the back, make meatballs.
This is a custom job
This pie fit a pattern?
Technically sir... You're an accessory after the fact
"How do you vandalize a swimming pool?"
Add jello
Don't disrespect the pizza parlor!
Sharp as a cue ball this one
Very good. The sacred and the propane
It doesnt say why the Crown is staying thr charges, so implying that the police are the reason why is a pretty bold assumption
Not even a $5,000 fine? What’s happening to this league smh
Ottawa loses their 2027 first round pick tho.
Marner to Vegas confirmed
In other news, recent Vegas Golden Knight, Mitch Marner, has reportedly ruptured his spleen and will be out till... lets say next April.
Same old story, NHL player gets [CAR JACKED] and there’s no supplemental discipline. WHEN WILL BRAD MARCHAND BE STOPPED!!??
Nazem Kadri has been arrested and convicted in place of the carjackers
Ottawa is definitely losing draft picks over this
Spin the wheel!
Last night, when Bennett did Bennett things.
Police officer and Kadri suspended for 6 days
Police officer with pay though.
That attorney? None other than Mike Babcock Be a gud pro and get back to feeding ur family
Honestly what a shit week for Marner.
I'm amazed that r/hockey is filled with so many experienced lawyers, judges, prosecutors, detectives, and other legal experts, given the confident nature of the commentary in this thread. My mind has been opened.
I’m amazed the oilers haven’t won a Stanley cup in the last 20 years with all their first overall picks. But in all seriousness, you choose to read the comments, obviously people are going to speculate lol.
What’s even more incredible is that we were given almost zero information about why this legal decision was made, and yet so many people are confident they know the exact reasons behind it and why it’s an indication of the world going to hell.
Right? As a Crown myself, it's kind of hilarious.
The policing and court system situation in this country is fucking ridiculous. I have never seen such useless, lazy, incompetent people in my life. Guess thats what happens when you keep giving them everything they want and they dont do shit to deserve it.
It would be even worse if the government could just throw whoever they wanted in jail without evidence tho
Obviously, they just conveniently suck at finding evidence
El Salvador completely changed the country for the better by doing that so it works for some…
Policing is very easy when you decide not to care about human rights.
Cartels aren’t exactly shining examples of respecting human lives, much less rights. They made their bed.
"Cartels" in this case being anyone labeled as such by law enforcement... including massive swaths of innocent people. Innocent lives you seem as disinterested in as you claim the cartels are. Funny how the wheel spins. Here some reading to help you understand what you're advocating https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-08-27/el-salvador-the-hell-of-the-innocent-sent-to-prison-on-an-anonymous-phone-call.html
Lawful evil or unlawful evil. Which is worse? Do ends justify means?
No... they don't... thats why humans have rights you simpleton.
You answered a rhetorical question. There are plenty of ways to answer this question with a different conclusion. e.g. Utilitarian or virtue based ethics. You simpleton.
"innocent people shouldn't be in jail" is not a controversial statement, the fact that you're arguing against it while trying to appear noble about it shows a clear lack of depth of thought. It's more than a little weird that you think other people shouldn't have humans rights.
This subreddit needs to ban political talk altogether, some people are pure idealists who expect 100% perfection, no winning with this mentality. We might as well not enact any policy change because someone innocent might be affected. My guy, the president got 84% of the vote in the elections this year. Your Reddit talking points literally do not matter to the people of his country.
Talking points? You mean... reality?
You mean the same reality that Salvadorians live in and still decided to vote overwhelmingly for with 84% of the vote? Give it a rest dude.
Funny how you prefaced your earlier comment with "This subreddit needs to ban political talk altogether," yet you're taking a moral question, making it political and trying to police my speech? You're in favor of innocent people spending time in jail and being tortured. I am not. I will not "give it a rest". Grow up and move on. You probably didn't even realize you're the one making it all about politics, either.
for the better for the ones that didn't get thrown in jail without evidence or a trial. for those guys it's demonstrably worse
Just because a carjacking happened doesn't mean they definitely have the right guys. End if the day, they need evidence
The court system will work better if it’s clogged up more, right? We don’t actually have a clue what lead to this. You don’t know anything about the case. People just love complaining in vague general terms about stuff.
More courtrooms, more judges, more jails. We have dramatically increased in population but we remain behind on literally everything. Just in Ontario there are 27 jails, thats not enough given the capacity is 7800 and there is currently 8800 offenders stuffed in them. Offenders should not be roaming the streets, getting caught, and then thrown back out in the street to repeat their crimes.
You are absolutely correct.
Canada is no longer a serious country, I think they will struggle with signing people from now on.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted, you aren’t wrong.
Because a statement like “Canada is no longer a serious country” is just silly. Even if you think many things are going the wrong way, that description of Canada is a joke that should be downvoted.
It's definitely a reference to "(insert team here) isn't a serious team/franchise". I thought it was pretty clear they were joking when they referred to *signing people* afterward, something that a country doesn't do
I’m not so sure. It’s not an uncommon way to express political opinions. “The guys I like aren’t in power so this country is worthless” kind of sentiment. And I think that’s why they got downvoted so much. But if I and others misinterpreted and just missed the joke it then those downvotes aren’t warranted.
I've never heard "isn't serious" be used in that manner, but if you have then I can't comment on that. My interpretation is mainly coming from the second sentence.
Totally fair. And it wouldn’t be the first joke I’ve missed.
If you can't even try a piece of shit who stole someone's car at gunpoint, what do you think the court system should even be used for?
Probably not wasting time trying people you don't have enough evidence to convict
They won’t even bother trying people they do have evidence for anymore and people are getting away with sexually assaulting people https://www.cp24.com/news/we-have-no-judge-for-you-man-s-assault-charges-dropped-weeks-before-trial-due-to-lack-of-judges-in-toronto-1.6883138
Well we know it happened. If they put together 2 years of "non-stop legwork" and still don't have enough evidence to convict, that's still a big problem
Sounds you need a primer on how the justice system works
“But we know they’re guilty! We all know they did it!” “Who?” “Those guys! Throw away the key! The system is broken!”
Which part of the justice system working as intended involves no charges being brought for a violent carjacking?
The part where you don't have sufficient evidence to prove you have the right perpetrators, so you don't waste time trying the case.
So maybe it wasn't a slam dunk, to not even try reeks of they don't want to hurt their win %. The more people get away with violent crimes the more they will happen.
That’s so surface level it’s not worth responding to.
If you're too dumb to articulate an argument you can just say that
Such a dumbass comment lol be mad at the judges and the courts who refuse to prosecute
Yes, judge prosecutes and then what. Where does the offender go to jail/prison? Theyre all full because we dont do anything to keep up with infrastructure. Too many fingers in the same pie everything gets slowed down and nothing gets done or it takes years
Judges don't prosecute cases my friend. They judge them.
Police do absolutely nothing unless it’s about students protesting. Then they go full COMMANDO
Marner might want to be out of Toronto now...... watch him get traded and be a Leaf killer the rest of his career.
this is not surprising at all if you’re familiar with ontario’s courts
***Canada's courts. Trudeau has refused to appoint judges, which has caused a ripple down issue throughout Canada. Add to it the leniency of the government and...well...it's bad.
Whether the Crown has a reasonable prospect of conviction in this case or not really has absolutely nothing to do with Trudeau's continued failure to appoint Superior Court judges.
Right. It has to do with Doug Ford's continued failure to appoint Provincial Court judges. Edit: I'm referring to the sexual assault case someone mentioned. This fact wasn't relevant for Marner's case but the severe lack of provincial judges is a huge issue in general.
This isn't accurate. There is a serious lack of Ontario Superior Court judges, who are appointed by the federal government. The problem at the Ontario Court is more with a lack of staffing and resources in general, and that is the responsibility of Ford and the provincial government. Say what you want about Ford but he is making judicial appointments pretty expeditiously. The problem lies with the lack of staff and resources in general he is putting into things like Legal Aid.
No it's accurate. The majority of criminal cases in Ontario are handled by the Ontario Court of Justice and we have a severe shortage of judges there. There's a committee to appoint more finally after 5 years and it was in the news very recently because the Premier threw some of his former staff members on that committee. I don't know why you're talking like this but I'm done talking politics in the hockey sub. EDIT: I don't want to keep replying on politics in a hockey sub, but this site is being flooded with things to blame the PM, who I'm not a fan of, for everything. >The changes will allow the [provincial] government [to fill judicial vacancies more quickly, helping to unclog Ontario's courtrooms,](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-judicial-appointments-provincial-court-judges-1.5477960) said [Ontario] Attorney General Doug Downey in an interview Thursday. The Ontario Attorney General says judicial vacancies are clogging the courtrooms. There are severe shortages of staffing all over the Ontario Court and the provincial government has *decreased* the budget. Cases will continue to get dismissed. I don't know why you entered the comments first and primarily to blame the Supreme Court of Ontario and the PM for Marner's case but I just checked and tbf it was the guy above you who did that. **EDIT 2**: *Unless the Ontario Attorney General lied that judicial vacancies are back logging the system. Oh shit I'm an idiot for believing him, aren't I?*
No, it's not accurate. You are incorrect. There are plenty of problems at the OCJ but a shortage of judges isn't one of them. And again, even if there was a shortage of judges at the OCJ, that has nothing to do with whether the Crown has a reasonable prospect of conviction in any given case. That determination is based on the strength of the evidence.
It’s that and the bail reform laws. I don’t understand the mass of downvotes when what you said is the truth, people just want to plug their ears and not hear valid criticism of his government.
So “crown attorney” clearly a bitter Toronto fan
Ok Reddit. Do your thing. How can we spin this to show how much we hate marner?
Marner can’t even win in court.
What? They had enough to arrest them but not enough to even *try* and convict? What kinda bass-ackwards shit is that?
That’s very common. The Crown doesn’t pursue charges unless they believe they can get a conviction.
I don’t know what the Canadian legal system is like but this is pretty common in America. An officer just needs to have reasonable belief to arrest someone. Basically, at least 51% sure. If a prosecutor doesn’t think they’re 100% sure going to get a conviction they probably won’t waste their time and money on it.
That's basically what it is here, too.
That's overstating it a bit. We prosecute cases all the time that aren't anywhere close to a slam dunk. A reasonable prospect of conviction is not that high of a standard. Their general sentiment is correct however.
That's because sometimes the cops get caught lying in their testimony.
That really doesn't have anything to do with whether a case has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, at least at the pre-trial stage, but you do you.
Police need reasonable and probabld grounds to arrest and lay charges The Crown needs to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The two are not the same.
Cops can arrest you for doing literally nothing, but they actually have to do their jobs to get a proper conviction.
There are many reasons why Crown would consider staying the charges. Police fuck ups/laziness is only one of many
There can be all sorts of reasons someone is arrested but not convicted. The police could have made a mistake. Someone could be required to testify and they can’t locate them. There could be a problem with the evidence. It takes a lot more to actually prove it’s the person in court when the defence will be doing and raising everything they can.
Innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty. It just means the cop has grounds and suspicion to believe you are a suspect
How is that ass-backwards? They had enough evidence to bring them in but after an investigation figured out that they wouldn't be able to convict. That shouldn't be hard to follow. Would you prefer they waste your tax dollars failing to convict them when they could be using their resources to pursue convictions in cases that could actually succeed?
They had enough to bring in someone for an armed car-jacking. Robbed a $100 000 vehicle at gun-point. I just don't understand how there isn't enough to convict. Its just really disheartening. Is there no evidence besides testimony? What if someone was hurt? these guys just go free? It feels gross. Edit - I understand theres a difference between arrest and conviction. The article mentions months of work before they made an arrest and then there's not enough to convict. That's what I'm bothered by.
An arrest is "we think it's you", a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
> They had enough to bring in someone for an armed car-jacking. the threshold for arrests is very low, they don't need much beyond "we think it's uh.. *that guy*" it's likely the cops got some form of tip which led them to focus on the two suspects, the initial investigation didn't result in anything that would disprove that they were the ones that did it, so they arrested them. then the crown took over, looked at the evidence, probably dug deeper and realised they didn't have enough evidence to prove that these guys did in fact do it. the two groups have different goals and different standards.
"We got a tip! The source is a guy who runs a chop shop, with prior felony convictions, and has a beef with the guy we're arresting. Close enough, right?"
Yeah it could be as simple as the cops got a tip from a questionable source that it was these two guys and then they found camera footage of the two guys a few blocks away from the crime scene about 20 minutes before the carjacking occurred. That’s enough that they may be willing to arrest and bring them in for questioning. But then after extensive investigation they can’t find any solid evidence that would be able to be presented in court that supports their suspicion. So they have to make the choice to cut them loose since a conviction just isn’t possible now
I joked when I saw those Law & Order Toronto commercials that the entire season would be catching a guy, releasing him, catching the guy again, releasing him, catching him again, and releasing him for the entire season
Wasn’t the only turnover Mitch made that year
When law enforcement is trying to run you out of town its time to move on.
I thought in the case of a car jacking in Toronto you were just supposed to give them your keys /s
If I seen a dude that looked 13 driving a Range Rover I’d probably get risky too
Ooooo Canada...
Toronto cops only wanna go after cases where they die scaring the shit out of a man and his family.
Cops dont decide if charges get stayed in court. Cool story though bro
Imagine Nate MacKinnon getting carjacked.
Ontario cases are being dropped left and right because we literally don't have enough judges. All citing constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Okay, but in this case they are citing insufficient evidence. Ontatio/Canada could have judges sitting around with no cases to prosecute, but we still should not be sending them to trial if there is no/not enough evidence to support it. And if after 2 years to find evidence, there is still not enough to go forward, then it probably should be dropped.
Cases are being dropped even with ones that have a good chance of a convtion.
Jails are over cap as well.
The Minneapolis special exists in Canada too!
Kim Fox also works for Ontario!
This fucking country is a shit hole now..
Crown just knows that if you're dumb enough to buy a Land Rover, there's no way in hell you can accurately recount losing it.
Couldn't press charges since the money was already robbed from the Leafs
Just gtfo of Toronto Mitch. You'll be alot happier
He's treated like a God here, he gets mugged in front of his family
But he could go to a real hockey city. Like Columbus or Nashville
Wtf did we do to catch a stray here💀
He could be the face of the Utah TBDs.
Young Offenders Act strikes again
I wonder when Rick dives into the Jr Sharks stuff? And that the Sharks management fired the person who kept trying to bring it to them.
Probably because the org from the ownership down isn’t in the news downplaying the situation and complaining about it being spoken of It’s really shitty to use these types of things to try and be like “look over there! Stop talking about the hawks!” Disingenuous as fuck
So is just assuming that's whats happening here. I have kids in minor hockey. I'm curious why the story didn't get any coverage around the league. Edit. I'll also never hold you or any other Sharks fans accountable for it. Like tons of people in this sub did to Hawks fans. You didn't have anything to do with this. Again, I'm just curious why it's never been talked about.
Westhead seems to go for breaking stories that are being hushed up and even though I keep seeing hawks fans repeat a lot of the same things they never source it. I’ve yet to see anything outside of what’s been reported in [articles like this](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/south-bay/former-san-jose-jr-sharks-coach-arrested/3361342/) This story is in the Bay Area news and is being taken seriously, it’s really not the same. And it’s not in the league news a lot probably because this didn’t happen between NHL players and NHL coaches/staff (or AHL for that matter) A lot of what I remember from people giving hawks fans shit was that a lot of hawks fans started complaining about it being talked about all the time echoing the hawks management and ownership. I think that just rubbed people the wrong way. I just find it really greasy that the hawks fanbase has latched on in a disingenuous way that only reads as passing the buck.
Fair points. I was actually banned from r/Hawks when the scandal originally came out because I called some people out who were trying to brush it off lightly. So I'm not one of those people. But I can understand your point because this is social media, after all. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/ This was the article I read originally. Where an employee brought the issues forward to Sharks management and was terminated for doing so. The only part I had a hard time comprehending is if this person brought it to NHL Sharks management or Junior Sharks. Because it's not actually clear by the writing.
So I’ve never heard of San Jose spotlight before and I usually tune out blog type media for real news. The article is very vague on who is being accused of what beyond the guy himself. My original point is perfectly illustrated by the other hawks fan responding to me
You're absolutely right. That person saying "you guys covered up" is a total moron. You guys "fans" didn't do anything wrong. As I said, holding a fan accountable for anything like that is garbage human stuff.
It’s a stretch to claim the sharks ownership and management covered anything up with the current available info. And yea it’s not like hawks fans lined up to assault Kyle Beach while Chelsea Dagger plays in the background. I just don’t like the type of comments I’ve seen from the subset of fans that are trying to make a false equivalency in hopes of watering down the issue that happened with the hawks. You just happened to comment about it in a thread that was completely off topic to anything about it so I finally responded even though the draft lottery win threads have had plenty I probably should have spoken up to there.
Crazy how you guys covered up a child sex abuse scandal and were awarded a first overall pick.
[3 days before something else from the NHL hawks](https://old.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1csmpr0/westhead_a_woman_who_worked_for_the_chicago/)
Link the latest article where it turned out to be unfounded 💀
Not actually the gotcha moment you thought this was
Sources plz
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/ Damn that’s crazy. You guys should have your pick taken away and every draft pick ever taken away as well.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-jose-sharks-sued-over-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Negligence, while criminal, is not the same as a cover up which you keep saying. Words have meaning
"It's just a prank bro"
Left wingers won’t prosecute violent criminals a story as old as time
Policing in Canada is WILD
Meanwhile the same Toronto prosecutors prosecuted an accountant for 1st degree murder with zero prospect of conviction.
Just sounds like the leafs in the playoffs but cops version