this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
275 points (98.9% liked)

Canada

7133 readers
351 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 121 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Objection!

On what grounds?

Their testimony will be devastating to our case...

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Their legal advice is actually quite simple.

STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 112 points 1 year ago

Those residents of Ottawa were the victims of the tantrumist attack. They should absolutely be allowed to testify.

If you don't want to be tried in Ottawa don't commit crimes in Ottawa. If you do commit crimes in Ottawa your victims should be allowed to testify against you.

[–] fuzzybee@lemm.ee 101 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't blocking Ottawa residents what they are on trial for in the first place?

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. Shut up!

DON'T MAKE ME GET MY TRUCK!

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Hoooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnkkkkkkkkkkkk

[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 34 points 1 year ago

Isn't preventing people from performing civic duties the opposite of freedom.

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lawrence Greenspoon has a terrible toupe.

[–] first_must_burn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

When I read this, I thought, "Is Lawrence Greenspoon the Canadian version of Alan Greenspan?"

[–] sparklepower@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

interesting. so they already signed statements admitting to blocking traffic and affecting local businesses, therefore they're arguing that those testimonies are not necessary. basically this is the equivalent of, "we already admitted it, can't we just move on?"

IMO the court should still hear the victims' impact statements. i hope the judge thinks so too.

[–] Sinthesis@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

9 witnesses is too much but not 18 naked cowboys.

[–] Fhek@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

They have the best lawyers versed in bird law