Racist dog owner Sage Meadows Calgary

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

9 hours later for me as well. But that's beside the point. I'm done with this thread, it's obvious whose true colors have shown. I don't go looking to "abuse" women but I'm not putting up with anyone laying their hands on me. Never been in "cuffs" so I'm not worried about ever being in that position. But if I ever am arrested for defending myself then so be it, I'm fine with that. I know my morals and will not allow no one to lay their hands on me since I never touch anyone without them hitting me first.

That lady would deserve everything she got if the Chinese guy fought back. And I'd have no sympathy for such an ignorant human being.

Fight back based on what? You can't just tee off on a person because they knock your phone away. The guy was obviously baiting her. No judge is going to accept a defence of him punching her because he swatted at her phone.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Thus why I said I agreed that you could not hit this woman in those circumstances. valo is saying if somebody punches you that you have no rights at all to hit him back. He is wrong.

He never made that point at all. I think you two are in agreement about when you can defend yourself but you are arguing about it.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Burninator

He never made that point at all. I think you two are in agreement about when you can defend yourself but you are arguing about it.

Sort of. We argue about everything it seems. He stated if somebody shoves you that does not give you the right to shove them back. Sure it does given the circumstances. If somebody comes up to you and shoves you with intent than you can shove them back, you are justified. I think valo just likes to argue with me and that is ok, I like people who have strong viewpoints.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The courts will take in to the size difference, gender, etc and the circumstances involved. However if two people of equal size and gender shove eachother there is no offense. If two people consent to a fight and punch eachother with the possible exception of causing a public disturbance there is no offence. If during the course of that fight one of the person's says stop and the other continued to hit him then that would be assault. I challenge you to find case law that says otherwise. If you are outside a bar and somebody shoves you, you have every right to shove them back. If somebody hits you, you have grounds to hit them back. Of course you cannot justify that action if the person were disabled, a child, much smaller, and other factors but if some guy hits you out on the street you can hit him back. If some guy spits on you on the street you would be justified in hitting him back. No court or judge would convict you on it. I know exactly how the code is applied because I work in law enforcement, what do you do valo? Your example of somebody shoving their way by is ridiculous and was never my point and you know it.

To the first bolded portion, why would I? I never argued anything remotely close to that.

Care to share the case law supporting that seconded bolded point?

As for what I do, I'm a lawyer. You quite clearly are lacking the ability, or desire, to actually think critically on this topic. Someone shoving you outside a bar may give you the right to defend yourself if they continue to pose a threat, it does not however give you carte blanche to shove them back. There is no eye for an eye.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Thus why I said I agreed that you could not hit this woman in those circumstances. valo is saying if somebody punches you that you have no rights at all to hit him back. He is wrong.

Dude did you fall on your head or something? I did not say that and have walked you through it repeatedly. Are you seriously that butt-hurt about getting called out in a thread a week ago?

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Fight back based on what? You can't just tee off on a person because they knock your phone away. The guy was obviously baiting her. No judge is going to accept a defence of him punching her because he swatted at her phone.

Who is exactly talking about what's legally right and wrong? What judge? You're arguing with yourself. Not sure why you quoted my post.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by valo403

Dude did you fall on your head or something? I did not say that and have walked you through it repeatedly. Are you seriously that butt-hurt about getting called out in a thread a week ago?

Enjoy the cuffs. You don't get to respond to an assault with a free pass to an assault of your own.

You don't get to hit people just because they hit you, even if they called you a bad name.

Did you not write this?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Did you not write this?

Just to be clear, you're now claiming that you understand the nuances of assault and self-defense better than a lawyer.

If you want to be taken seriously, it's time to be a little more upfront about your profession than "I work in law enforcement".

So what is it? Security guard? RMCP, Police Department? Crossing guard?

What are YOUR credentials?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Did you not write this?

Sure did, and every bit of it is true.

You don't get a free pass to assault someone. You don't get to hit someone just because they hit you. That's not how it works. That would be an eye for an eye, and the fact you think that may be the case is quite frankly troubling.

The funny part is you don't actually think that, you said as much on this page when you acknowledge a need to look at the particular circumstances. But instead you want to keep arguing that it's black and white because you're bothered by a post from a week ago calling you out.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Just to be clear, you're now claiming that you understand the nuances of assault and self-defense better than a lawyer.

If you want to be taken seriously, it's time to be a little more upfront about your profession than "I work in law enforcement".

So what is it? Security guard? RMCP, Police Department? Crossing guard?

What are YOUR credentials?

To be clear, I'm no expert on Canadian criminal law, my point is simply that being assaulted does not grant you a free pass to deliver an assault. There's much more to it than that and the circumstances have to be taken into consideration. He knows that, he's just being intentionally obtuse.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Just to be clear, you're now claiming that you understand the nuances of assault and self-defense better than a lawyer.

If you want to be taken seriously, it's time to be a little more upfront about your profession than "I work in law enforcement".

So what is it? Security guard? RMCP, Police Department? Crossing guard?

What are YOUR credentials?

How do you know he is a lawyer? Anybody can be anybody on the internet. Even if he is so what? His interpretation of the law may differ from mine and may differ from another lawyer. Most laws are not cut and dry. I will tell you I work in law enforcement, that is it. You can discredit me by that, I don't really care. It is a message board, no big deal.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by valo403

To be clear, I'm no expert on Canadian criminal law, my point is simply that being assaulted does not grant you a free pass to deliver an assault. There's much more to it than that and the circumstances have to be taken into consideration. He knows that, he's just being intentionally obtuse.

No, I just like discussing things. Look valo, we seem to be agreeing on this but finding small things to take out of context and then come at the other with it. I know you know law, I can tell. I guess I am being a bit of a dick and I should be better than that. I apologize.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Wow. Dogs vs. racists. This is like the most epic clash in CP history. It even has a touch of police brutality.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No, I just like discussing things. Look valo, we seem to be agreeing on this but finding small things to take out of context and then come at the other with it. I know you know law, I can tell. I guess I am being a bit of a dick and I should be better than that. I apologize.

I am too, I apologize as well.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Wow, dissentowner and valo403 have settled their differences. This thread even bring couples together!

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The courts will take in to the size difference, gender, etc and the circumstances involved. However if two people of equal size and gender shove eachother there is no offense. If two people consent to a fight and punch eachother with the possible exception of causing a public disturbance there is no offence. If during the course of that fight one of the person's says stop and the other continued to hit him then that would be assault. I challenge you to find case law that says otherwise. If you are outside a bar and somebody shoves you, you have every right to shove them back. If somebody hits you, you have grounds to hit them back. Of course you cannot justify that action if the person were disabled, a child, much smaller, and other factors but if some guy hits you out on the street you can hit him back. If some guy spits on you on the street you would be justified in hitting him back. No court or judge would convict you on it. I know exactly how the code is applied because I work in law enforcement, what do you do valo? Your example of somebody shoving their way by is ridiculous and was never my point and you know it.

nm. who cares.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Wow, dissentowner and valo403 have settled their differences. This thread even brings couples together!

those two dicks hugged and shook hands.

[Jordan!]

Sorry, but the camera man was a total idiot for not just minding his business. Unless there's more of a backstory to this he should have just went on his way rather than playing bylaw rent-a-cop.

Not excusing the racist comments whatsoever but it's not like the lady had vicious/aggressive dogs or wasn't picking up it's poop. What is the issue here?

[dissentowner]

nm

[DuffMan]

rhubarb lady > racist dog lady