Asian Fever

Ghomeshi will be acquitted

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I'm not condoning the shooting, but I have to say that I used to think it was crazy for police to shoot someone with a knife, if they were even more than 5 feet away. I had a little demonstration done by a friend who is an officer though. He stood either 10 or 20 feet away (fairly big difference, I know) and you'd be surprised how quickly someone can close that distance from a stand still position - especially if your gun isn't already drawn.

I think they're trained to shoot before it gets to any point of danger. If they believe it's a perceived threat, then don't wait until the last second to decide to put yourself in danger. I think. Hopefully someone with knowledge of LE can clarify.
I think your example "you'd be surprised how quickly someone can close that distance from a stand still position" illustrates why every officer there had their gun drawn and was shouting "drop the knife, drop the knife" any trained person knows that even if you have your gun drawn, a person 20 feet away can reach you and take the gun away from you. I've done that.

If the person 20 feet away can easily reach you and take your gun away, a person much closer with a knife can easily reach you and stab you.

It's because it's actually hard to react quickly enough, decide to shoot and have your weapon ready to shoot in that little time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Tueller Drill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.

Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]

A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being accused of murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]

The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]

The attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.

Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[4]
 
Last edited:

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I think your example "you'd be surprised how quickly someone can close that distance from a stand still position" illustrates why every officer there had their gun drawn and was shouting "drop the knife, drop the knife" any trained person knows that even if you have your gun drawn, a person 20 feet away can reach you and take the gun away from you. I've done that.

If the person 20 feet away can easily reach you and take your gun away, a person much closer with a knife can easily reach you and stab you.

It's because it's actually hard to react quickly enough, decide to shoot and have your weapon ready to shoot in that little time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill



This is why when the police are yelling at you "drop the knife, drop the knife" they are on a hair trigger and if it even looks like you are moving towards them - you will be shot. That's how they are trained.

You must remember that in 1983 the service side arm was a revolver. A revolver is actually faster to bring into action for the first shot, pistols are faster for the following shots. In 2005 officers began to re-test the "20 foot rule".

https://www.policeone.com/edged-wea...ense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/

Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid? (Part 1)

May 23, 2005

Part 1 of a 2-Part Series

For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons.

Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video "Surviving Edged Weapons," the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.

The implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

Recently a Force Science News member, a deputy sheriff from Texas, suggested that "it's time for a fresh look" at the underlying principles of edged-weapon defense, to see if they are "upheld by fresh research." He observed that "the knife culture is growing, not shrinking," with many people, including the homeless, "carrying significant blades on the street." He noted that compared to scientific findings, "anecdotal evidence is not good enough when an officer is in court defending against a wrongful death claim because he felt he had to shoot some[body] with a knife at 0-dark:30 a.m."

As a prelude to more extensive studies of edged-weapon-related issues, the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato has responded by reexamining the 21-Foot Rule, arguably the most widely taught and commonly remembered element of edged-weapon defense.

After testing the Rule against FSRC's landmark findings on action-reaction times and conferring with selected members of its National and Technical Advisory Boards, the Center has reached these conclusions, according to Executive Director Dr. Bill Lewinski:


1. Because of a prevalent misinterpretation, the 21-Foot Rule has been dangerously corrupted.

2. When properly understood, the 21-Foot Rule is still valid in certain limited circumstances.

3. For many officers and situations, a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.

4. The weapon that officers often think they can depend on to defeat knife attacks can't be relied upon to protect them in many cases.

5. Training in edged-weapon defense should by no means be abandoned.

In this installment of our 2-part series, we'll examine the first two points. The others will be explained in Part 2.


1. MISINTERPRETATION

"Unfortunately, some officers and apparently some trainers as well have 'streamlined' the 21-Foot Rule in a way that gravely distorts its meaning and exposes them to highly undesirable legal consequences," Lewinski says. Namely, they have come to believe that the Rule means that a subject brandishing an edged weapon when positioned at any distance less than 21 feet from an officer can justifiably be shot.

For example, an article on the 21-Foot Rule in a highly respected LE magazine states in its opening sentence that "a suspect armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat." The "common knowledge" that "deadly force against him is justified" has long been "accepted in police and court circles," the article continues.

Statements like that, Lewinski says, "have led officers to believe that no matter what position they're in, even with their gun on target and their finger on the trigger, they are in extreme danger at 21 feet. They believe they don't have a chance of surviving unless they preempt the suspect by shooting.

"However widespread that contaminated interpretation may be, it is NOT accurate. A suspect with a knife within 21 feet of an officer is POTENTIALLY a deadly threat. He does warrant getting your gun out and ready. But he cannot be considered an actual threat justifying deadly force until he takes the first overt action in furtherance of intention--like starting to rush or lunge toward the officer with intent to do harm. Even then there may be factors besides distance that influence a force decision.

"So long as a subject is stationary or moving around but not advancing or giving any indication he's about to charge, it clearly is not legally justified to use lethal force against him. Officers who do shoot in those circumstances may find themselves subject to disciplinary action, civil suits or even criminal charges."

Lewinski believes the misconception of the 21-Foot Rule has become so common that some academies and in-service training programs now are reluctant to include the Rule as part of their edged-weapon defense instruction for fear of non-righteous shootings resulting.

"When you talk about the 21-Foot Rule, you have to understand what it really means when fully articulated correctly in order to judge its value as a law enforcement concept," Lewinski says. "And it does not mean 'less than 21 feet automatically equals shoot.'"

2. VALIDITY

In real-world encounters, many variables affect time, which is the key component of the 21-Foot Rule. What is the training skill and stress level of the officer? How fast and agile is he? How alert is he to preliminary cues to aggressive movement? How agile and fast is the suspect? Is he drunk and stumbling, or a young guy in a ninja outfit ready to rock and roll? How adept is the officer at drawing his holstered weapon? What kind of holster does he have? What's the terrain? If it's outdoors, is the ground bumpy or pocked with holes? Is the suspect running on concrete, or on grass, or through snow and across ice? Is the officer uphill and the suspect downhill, or vice versa? If it's indoors, is the officer at the foot of stairs and the suspect above him, or vice versa? Are there obstacles between them? And so on.

These factors and others can impact the validity of the 21-Foot Rule because they affect an attacking suspect's speed in reaching the officer, and the officer's speed in reacting to the threatening charge.

The 21-Foot Rule was formulated by timing subjects beginning their headlong run from a dead stop on a flat surface offering good traction and officers standing stationary on the same plane, sidearm holstered and snapped in. The FSRC has extensively measured action and reaction times under these same conditions. Among other things, the Center has documented the time it takes officers to make 20 different actions that are common in deadly force encounters. Here are some of the relevant findings that the FSRC applied in reevaluating the 21-Foot Rule:

Once he perceives a signal to do so, the AVERAGE officer requires 1.5 seconds to draw from a snapped Level II holster and fire one unsighted round at center mass. Add 1/4 of a second for firing a second round, and another 1/10 of a second for obtaining a flash sight picture for the average officer.

The fastest officer tested required 1.31 seconds to draw from a Level II holster and get off his first unsighted round.The slowest officer tested required 2.25 seconds.

For the average officer to draw and fire an unsighted round from a snapped Level III holster, which is becoming increasingly popular in LE because of its extra security features, takes 1.7 seconds.

Meanwhile, the AVERAGE suspect with an edged weapon raised in the traditional "ice-pick" position can go from a dead stop to level, unobstructed surface offering good traction in 1.5-1.7 seconds.

The "fastest, most skillful, most powerful" subject FSRC tested "easily" covered that distance in 1.27 seconds. Intense rage, high agitation and/or the influence of stimulants may even shorten that time, Lewinski observes.

Even the slowest subject "lumbered" through this distance in just 2.5 seconds.

Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. "Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance," Lewinski says, and firing in hopes of stopping an activated attack within this range may well be justified.

But many unpredictable variables that are inevitable in the field prevent a precise, all-encompassing truism from being fashioned from controlled "laboratory" research.

"If you shoot an edged-weapon offender before he is actually on you or at least within reaching distance, you need to anticipate being challenged on your decision by people both in and out of law enforcement who do not understand the sobering facts of action and reaction times," says FSRC National Advisory Board member Bill Everett, an attorney, use-of-force trainer and former cop. "Someone is bound to say, 'Hey, this guy was 10 feet away when he dropped and died. Why'd you have to shoot him when he was so far away from you?'"

Be able to articulate why you felt yourself or other innocent party to be in "imminent or immediate life-threatening jeopardy and why the threat would have been substantially accentuated if you had delayed," Everett advises. You need specifically to mention the first articulable motion that indicated the subject was about to attack and was beyond your ability to influence verbally."

And remember: No single 'rule' can arbitrarily be used to determine when a particular level of force is lawful. The 21-Foot Rule has value as a rough guideline, illustrating the reactionary curve, but it is by no means an absolute.

"The Supreme Court's landmark use-of-force decision, in Graham v. Connor, established a 'reasonableness' standard," Everett reminds. "You'll be judged ultimately according to what a 'reasonable' officer would have done. All of the facts and circumstances that make up the dynamics between you and the subject will be evaluated."

Of course, some important facts may be subtle and now widely known or understood. That's where FSRC's unique findings on lethal-force dynamics fit in. Explains Lewinski: "The FSRC's research will add to your ability to articulate and explain the facts and circumstances and how they influenced your decision to use force."

Related Story:

Edged Weapon Defense: Is or Was the 21-foot Rule Valid? Part 2
https://www.policeone.com/close-qua...ense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-2/
https://www.policeone.com/close-qua...ense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-2/
Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid? (Part 2)

Jun 13, 2005

Part 2 of a 2-Part Series

EDITOR'S NOTE: For the record, the 21-Foot Rule, when accurately stated, says that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with an edged weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet. Thus, when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet you need to have your gun out and ready to shoot before he starts rushing you or else you risk being set upon and injured or killed before you can draw your sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

In Part 1 of this special series we reported on how the 21-Foot Rule, one of the core training components of edged-weapon defense, stands up when assessed against landmark findings about action-reaction times documented by the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. We explained:

1. Because of misinterpretation, the 21-Foot Rule has been dangerously corrupted, but

2. When properly understood, the Rule is still valid in certain circumstances.

Now in this final installment of our 2-part series we discuss additional conclusions regarding edged-weapon defense, namely:

3. For many officers and situations, a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.

4. Weapons that officers often think they can depend on to defeat knife attacks can't be relied upon to protect them in many cases.

5. Training in edged-weapon defense should by no means be abandoned.

Here's what FSRC's executive director and selected members of the Center's National and Technical Advisory Boards have to say on these topics:

3. MORE DISTANCE. "In reality, the 21-Foot Rule--by itself--may not provide officers with an adequate margin of protection," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, FSRC's executive director. "It's easily possible for suspects in some circumstances to launch a successful fatal attack from a distance greater than 21 feet."

Among other police instructors, John Delgado, retired training officer for the Miami-Dade (FL) PD, has extended the 21-Foot Rule to 30 feet. "Twenty-one feet doesn't really give many officers time to get their gun out and fire accurately," he says. "Higher-security holsters complicate the situation, for one thing. Some manufacturers recommend 3,000 pulls to develop proficiency with a holster. Most cops don't do that, so it takes them longer to get their gun out than what's ideal. Also shooting proficiency tends to deteriorate under stress. Their initial rounds may not even hit."

Beyond that, there's the well-established fact that a suspect often can keep going from momentum, adrenalin, chemicals and sheer determination, even after being shot. "Experience informs us that people who are shot with a handgun do not fall down instantly nor does the energy of a handgun round stop their forward movement," states Chris Lawrence, team leader of DT training at the Ontario (Canada) Police College and an FSRC Technical Advisory Board member. Says Lewinski: "Certain arterial or spinal hits may drop an attacker instantly. But otherwise a wounded but committed suspect may have the capacity to continue on to the officer's location and complete his deadly intentions."

That's one reason why tactical distractions, which we'll discuss in a moment, should play an important role in defeating an edged-weapon attack, even when you are able to shoot to defend yourself.

"When working with bare-minimum margins, any delay in an officer responding to a deadly threat can equate to injury or death," reinforces attorney and use-of-force trainer Bill Everett, an FSRC National Advisory Board member. "So the officer must key his or her reaction to the first overt act indicating that a lethal attack is coming.

"More distance and time give the officer not only more tactical options but also more opportunity to confirm the attacker's lethal intention before selecting a deadly force response."

4. MISPLACED CONFIDENCE. Relying on OC or a Taser for defeating a charging suspect is probably a serious mistake. Gary Klugiewicz, a leading edged-weapon instructor and a member of FSRC's National Advisory Board, points out that firing out Taser barbs may be an effective option in dealing with a threatening but STATIONARY subject. But depending on this force choice to stop a charging suspect could be disastrous.

With fast, on-rushing movement, "there's a real chance of not hitting the subject effectively and of not having sufficient time" for the electrical charge--or for a blast of OC--to take effect before he is on you, Klugiewicz says.

Lewinski agrees, adding: "A rapid charge at an officer is a common characteristic of someone high on chemicals or severely emotionally disturbed. More research is needed, but it appears that when a Taser isn't effective it is most often with these types of suspects."

Smug remarks about offenders foolishly "bringing a knife to a gunfight" betray dangerous thinking about the ultimate force option, too. Some officers are cockily confident they'll defeat any sharp-edged threat because they carry a superior weapon: their service sidearm. This belief may be subtly reinforced by fixating on distances of 21 or 30 feet, as if this is the typical reaction space you'll have in an edged-weapon encounter.

The truth is that where edged-weapon attacks are concerned, "close-up confrontations are actually the norm," points out Sgt. Craig Stapp, a firearms trainer with the Tempe (AZ) P.D. and a member of FSRC's Technical Advisory Board. "A suspect who knows how to effectively deploy a knife can be extremely dangerous in these circumstances. Even those who are not highly trained can be deadly, given the close proximity of the contact, the injury knives are capable of, and the time it takes officers to process and react to an assault.

"At close distances, standing still and drawing are usually not the best tactics to employ and may not even be possible." At a distance of 10 feet, a subject is less than half a second away from making the first cut on an officer, Lewinski's research shows. Therefore, rather than relying on a holstered gun, officers must be trained in hands-on techniques to deflect or delay the use of the knife, to control it and/or to remove it from the attacker's grasp, or to buy time to get their gun out. These methods have to be simple enough to be learned by the average officer.

Two techniques that bear reinforcement are illustrated in the well-known training video "Surviving Edged Weapons", for which Gary Klugiewicz was a technical consultant. One is a deflection technique called Sweep and Disengage. The other is a tactic for controlling the attacker's weapon hand, called by the acronym G.U.N. (Grab...Undo...Neutralize).

Stapp strongly believes that training in edged-weapon defense should prepare an officer to deal psychologically with getting cut or stabbed, a realistic probability with lag time, close encounters and desperate control attempts. "Officers need to be trained to continue to fight," Stapp says. "They will not have time to stop and assess how severe the wound is. You don't want them in the mind-set, 'I've been cut, I'm going to die.' They must remain focused on stopping the attack, taking out the guy who is the threat to them."

Checking yourself over for injury after the offender is subdued is important, too, Klugiewicz says. "Some survivors of edged-weapon attacks report that they were not aware of being cut or stabbed when the injury occurred. They thought they had just been punched and didn't realize what really happened until later."

5. TRAINING. "Assuming it is presented accurately and in context with the many variables that shape knife encounters, the 21-Foot Rule can be a valuable training aid," Lewinski says. "As a role-playing exercise, it provides a dramatic and memorable demonstration of how fast an offender can close distance, and it can motivate officers to improve their performance skills."

Experiment with it and you may conclude, like Delgado, that 21 feet is not enough of a safety margin for your troops.

You might also use 21-Foot Rule exercises to test tactical methods for imposing lag time on offenders in order to buy more reaction time for officers. These could range from using or creating obstacles (standing behind a tree or shoving a chair between you and the offender) to moving yourself strategically. You're probably familiar with the Tactical L, for example, in which an officer moves laterally to a charging offender's line of attack. With the right timing, this surprises and slows the attacker as he processes the movement and scrambles to redirect his assault, and gives the officer opportunity to draw and get on target.

Lewinski favors a variation called the Tactical J. Here, instead of moving 90 degrees off line, the officer moves obliquely forward at a 45-degree angle to the oncoming offender. "This tends to be more confusing to the suspect and requires more of a radical change on his part to come after you," Lewinski says. "But the timing has to be such that the suspect is fully committed to his charge and can't readily adjust to what you've done. That takes lots of practice with a wide variety of training partners."

If nothing else, training with the 21-Foot Rule will help officers better estimate just how far 21 feet is. Without a good deal of practice, most can't accurately gauge that distance, Lewinski says, and thus tend to sabotage appropriate defensive reactions.

Don't forget, though, that most edged-weapon attacks are "up close and personal." That means training must include effective empty-hand-control techniques, close quarters shooting drills and weapon retention. "We need to develop the ability to draw our sidearm, get on target and GET HITS extremely fast," while moving as a diversionary measure if possible, says Stapp. "Close-range shooting--under 10 feet--will most effectively be accomplished when an officer has developed the ability to get on target 'by feel,' without using his sights."

Lewinski also recommends drills to imprint rapid reholstering techniques. Reholstering may become necessary if there's a sudden change in threat level--say the offender throws his weapon down and is no longer presenting an imminent threat justifying deadly force--and the officer needs both hands free to deal with him.

There's little doubt that the "knife culture" and related attacks on officers are dangerously flourishing. Edged-weapon assaults are a staple of the news reports of police incidents from across the U.S. and Canada on the website of FSRC's strategic partner, PoliceOne.com. Recently an officer in New York City was slashed in the face during a fight that broke out on a man-with-a-gun call...in Ohio, a state trooper fatally shot a berserk motorist who charged him with a hatchet...another offender, who called 911 in Pennsylvania to report he was having a heart attack, ended up shot 13 times and killed after commands and OC failed to stop him from lunging at a trooper with a chain saw...in Calgary (Ont.) a blood-soaked man waved a bloody butcher knife over his head and charged at constables who responded to a domestic...a suspected rapist attacked a Chicago detective with a screwdriver after luring him into an interrogation room by asking for a cigarette...in the reception area of a California prison, an inmate serving time for trying to kill a cop stabbed a correctional officer to death with a shank...in Idaho, an out-of-control teenager punched holes in the walls of his house with a 15-inch bayonet, then turned on a responding officer with the blade and sliced his uniform before the cop shot him....

"Given today's environment, rather than draw back on edged-weapon training, officers and agencies should be expanding it," Lewinski declares. "Edged-weapon attacks are serious and should be taken seriously by trainers, officers and administrators alike. Finding out what works best in the way of realistic tactical defenses and then training those tactics as broadly as possible has never been more needed."

FSRC is currently involved in additional research on the dynamics of edged-weapon confrontations and plans a major report on its findings before the end of this year.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I did he wasn't anywhere near the steps
The Jury watched those videos several times. They found that Forcillo was correct in his decision to fire the first 3 rounds because Yatim had moved towards the officers. They then found that the additional shots were illegal because Yatim was no longer a threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jP96xewXDI at .52 Yatim moves rapidly from his previous position to the door. Forcillo fires 3 shots. Forcillo then fires another 6 shots into Yatim while he's already down.
 

rexxx

New member
Apr 15, 2009
498
0
0
The Jury watched those videos several times. They found that Forcillo was correct in his decision to fire the first 3 rounds because Yatim had moved towards the officers. They then found that the additional shots were illegal because Yatim was no longer a threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jP96xewXDI at .52 Yatim moves rapidly from his previous position to the door. Forcillo fires 3 shots. Forcillo then fires another 6 shots into Yatim while he's already down.
You said he came down one step why are you backpedalling?
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
You said he came down one step why are you backpedalling?
Because my memory was incorrect. When he came down one step is when the bus driver was still on the bus.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
After skimming this article I am glad I did not actually make any bets. Its seems likely this judge will acquit.

JD
any Judge actually, a finding of guilty on any of the charges that involve Lucy DeCoutere or complainant 3 would be immediately subject to appeal. With complainant 1 it's a little tougher call, It depends on what the Judge thinks of her testimony, but she didn't lie like a rug as Lucy DeCoutere or complainant 3 did. Also, as pointed out in another article, Marie Henein didn't accuse her of lying in a direct manner. Marie Henein accused her of not having an accurate memory of the incident. In the other article, the Lawyer that was being interviewed thought it possible that Jian Ghomeshi had told Marie Henein things under Attorney Client Privilege that prevented Marie Henein from calling complainant 1 a liar. A lawyer cannot accuse a witness of lying if (s)he knows the witness is telling the truth, for whatever reason.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
(doers the "for whatever reason" indicate an inquiry as to why this might be?

I believe that in Canada, even the defense council are officers of the court and therefore the act of lying (e.g. calling true testimony a lie) would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and would be grounds for professional disciplinary action.
"Whatever reason" could be what Jian Ghomeshi told her, it could also be something that she learned from another source. She obviously had access to all of his email and social account, there must have been a team that went through all of that stuff. It could have been an exchange of email between Jian Ghomeshi and complainant 1. Whatever it was, it meant that she couldn't challenge complainant 1's testimony that he hit her.

Which is why the lawyer the Globe and Mail was interviewing had the opinion that Marie Henein had been told something by Jian Ghomeshi. If he told her "I hit her", Marie Henein cannot accuse complainant 1 of lying when the complainant says "I wanted him to tell me why he hit me". She didn't have any difficulty accusing the other complainants of lying, which, under the same logic, means that their story and what Jian Ghomeshi told Marie Henein don't match up.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...id-excellent-job-fellow-defence-attorney-says
Q: It was only to Lucy DeCoutere that Henein said this was a bald-faced lie, I think. With the first witness, Henein suggested that whatever happened in the car wasn’t that bad and that whatever happened at Ghomeshi’s home, she couldn’t remember; and whatever happened to the third witness on the park bench wasn’t that bad and that she herself told police she didn’t think it was that bad.

A: I wasn’t there for the first witness, but from what I read, and even in closing submissions, it was interesting because (the defence team’s) Danielle Robitaille didn’t say it was a lie, it didn’t happen.

But at the end Henein made a very clever final submission — she said the truth is between the lines. She didn’t say they lied. She said you cannot rely on what they said — which is an interesting closing. The judge is not being told it’s not true. But it may not be enough for reasonable doubt.

It was a very clever presentation of the evidence from the defence’s perspective. Sometimes she was skirting around the issue. And I think at the end of the day they made a bald assertion. They were helped by complainants who made terrible mistakes.
 
Last edited:

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
"Whatever reason" could be what Jian Ghomeshi told her, it could also be something that she learned from another source. She obviously had access to all of his email and social account, there must have been a team that went through all of that stuff. It could have been an exchange of email between Jian Ghomeshi and complainant 1. Whatever it was, it meant that she couldn't challenge complainant 1's testimony that he hit her.

Which is why the lawyer the Globe and Mail was interviewing had the opinion that Marie Henein had been told something by Jian Ghomeshi. If he told her "I hit her", Marie Henein cannot accuse complainant 1 of lying when the complainant says "I wanted him to tell me why he hit me". She didn't have any difficulty accusing the other complainants of lying, which, under the same logic, means that their story and what Jian Ghomeshi told Marie Henein don't match up.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...id-excellent-job-fellow-defence-attorney-says
When you accuse someone of lying in court you usually need something to back that accusation up with. Just saying "I think you are lying" doesn't carry any weight. For that particular witness she didn't have evidence to support such an accusation, so she didn't make it. With the other two there was evidence, so she could say that.
 

papillion

Active member
Jan 31, 2006
705
74
28
BC
Because it would be irrelevant if no complaint was made.

Most likely the video in question made it clear that there was consent as well, which again would render in irrelevant.

Your arguments about BDSM being illegal are not valid btw. The bit of the law code you cite has an intent requirement, and if you don't have the intent to render someone unconscious or render them unable to resist then the law has not been broken. BDSM is role playing, it is not the intent to cause grievous harm or do something to someone against their will. There are limits based on what is reasonable of course, but to suggest that it is all illegal is ridiculous.
I believe this is the reason Ghomeshi pleaded not guilty and why he will be aquitted.
Consensual bdsm, where there is no intent to do harm, is legal.
Lots of vanilla people don't understand the S\M culture, so they react with fear and hostility towards the defendent.
In typical Bdsm play, there is A LOT of negotiation, and consent is usually agreed upon before play.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I believe this is the reason Ghomeshi pleaded not guilty and why he will be aquitted.
Consensual bdsm, where there is no intent to do harm, is legal.
Lots of vanilla people don't understand the S\M culture, so they react with fear and hostility towards the defendent.
In typical Bdsm play, there is A LOT of negotiation, and consent is usually agreed upon before play.
If the complainants had had their acts together and had told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - there wouldn't be a conversation about acquittal.

Each of the complainants had said that he attacked them by surprise, without discussion.

If that had been the whole truth, Jian Ghomeshi would be going to jail. In all of the analyses once the sides closed their cases, the issue is always the information that Marie Henein had discovered and used to indicate a longer term relationship than the complainant had originally indicated.

It would seem to me, that the indication is that Jian Ghomeshi had a habit of NOT asking when he wanted to begin a relationship. He was fortunate with these complainants that, provably, they did continue to have a relationship with him.

In June he goes to trial against a complainant that probably did not have a continued relationship with him - what's more - she is now forewarned and has 5 months to prepare for her court appearance. She also phoned a girlfriend for help when Jian Ghomeshi was refusing to hear NO.
 
Last edited:

johnsmit

Active member
May 4, 2013
1,297
16
38
I think the prosicusion was hoping that he would be convicted on these four counts and set a president for the next case
But if that does not happen.. the other case might faulter too.
No sure what he is charged with in the other cases. Or how long ago that one was
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
If that had been the whole truth, Jian Ghomeshi would be going to jail.
i'm not so sure about jail time. it would appaear that none of the 'attacks' were serious enough to require a trip to the hospital. it would seem to me that a trip to jail would at least require that real physical harm had been perpetrated

even the so-called choking to overcome resistance charge - it would again seem to me that the choking would have to render the recipient unable to resist fuck-wad's intentions, either because of complete inability to breathe, or becoming unconscious, or having a complete spaz-out panic attack, to warrant jail time. none of these things appeared to have happened, so i doubt jail time was ever in the cards
 

papillion

Active member
Jan 31, 2006
705
74
28
BC
If the complainants had had their acts together and had told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - there wouldn't be a conversation about acquittal.

Each of the complainants had said that he attacked them by surprise, without discussion.

If that had been the whole truth, Jian Ghomeshi would be going to jail. In all of the analyses once the sides closed their cases, the issue is always the information that Marie Henein had discovered and used to indicate a longer term relationship than the complainant had originally indicated.

It would seem to me, that the indication is that Jian Ghomeshi had a habit of NOT asking when he wanted to begin a relationship. He was fortunate with these complainants that, provably, they did continue to have a relationship with him.

In June he goes to trial against a complainant that probably did not have a continued relationship with him - what's more - she is now forewarned and has 5 months to prepare for her court appearance.
My gut feeling is Ghomeshi flirted with these women, they responded positively, hinted at bdsm, they consented, he roughed them up, the women expected a serious committed telationship Ghomeshi dissappointed them, and the women were so furiousthat they decided to use the courts to exact revenge.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
My gut feeling is Ghomeshi flirted with these women, they responded positively, hinted at bdsm, they consented, he roughed them up, the women expected a serious committed telationship Ghomeshi dissappointed them, and the women were so furiousthat they decided to use the courts to exact revenge.
I think you are probably right about that with the three complainants in the trial that was just conducted. They all had continued contact with him after their alleged assaults. There is another trial in June, It doesn't sound like she had continued contact with him.

I think that it could be the woman in this article, she's since been identified as Carla Ciccone. She said NO numerous times to his very persistent advances and grabbyness. She also phoned a girlfriend for help during the incident. http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/non-date

She's the reason that CBC had their interview with Jian Ghomeshi, apparently - after she published the article, he conducted an Internet campaign against her.

It could also be this woman who has since been identified as Kathryn Borel. She went to the union to try to get him to leave her alone, but the union demonstrated why it's a waste of money to pay union dues. She's the one that started the reporter for the Toronto Star on the investigation that finally lead to Jian Ghomeshi being fired by the CBC. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/-sp-jian-ghomeshi-sexual-harassment-cbc-ignored
 
Last edited:

tokugawa

Member
Sep 8, 2005
487
3
18
My gut feeling is Ghomeshi flirted with these women, they responded positively, hinted at bdsm, they consented, he roughed them up, the women expected a serious committed telationship Ghomeshi dissappointed them, and the women were so furiousthat they decided to use the courts to exact revenge.
I might be a bit naive but can a woman be so vindictive enough to actually go through the judicial process and incur this type of public scrutiny just for revenge?
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I might be a bit naive but can a woman be so vindictive enough to actually go through the judicial process and incur this type of public scrutiny just for revenge?
Yes, just get divorced and find out. Large numbers of women have accused their soon to be ex-husband of terrible sex crimes against their children, very publicly because they think if they "win" in the court of public opinion - they will win in a court of law.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
I might be a bit naive but can a woman be so vindictive enough to actually go through the judicial process and incur this type of public scrutiny just for revenge?
Ummm.....yes.

Never be surprised at the lengths a human being will go to get revenge when they really want to. Remember, although these alleged assaults were relatively minor, at least one of the complainants carried the desire to get him for over a decade. Who the hell does that? That is a LONG time to harbor a grudge for something like this. IMO there is something deeper going on, she WANTS to destroy him, and probably not for the reasons this trial is about.
 

johnsmit

Active member
May 4, 2013
1,297
16
38
The biggest problem in case of this kind is tgat they are not reported right away ..and there nay be many reasons for that .. but if at the time a victim thinks they were asukted ..abused or raped they need to act as soon as possible the problem comes when they wait ...and wait till some one else comes forward ..then thru thunk they gave a stronger case ..they don't realy. There's to many things they did wrong in the mean time ..that hurt their case ..

Victims have to act as soon as possible ..see a doctor ...a cuncilor. .and lawyer and go to the police and file a complaint so there is a record. .

As for gemeshi not testified ..that is a right all defenders have ..and should continue to have ..If there is no case when give the prosicusion one ..if they coukd not find any other evidence. .
But at the same time you lose your right to give your point of view also or to profess your inocents..more for the public benefit

In a trial by judge. Both side must prove their case by point of law and collaborated evidence...Unlike a jury trial where emotion csn still sway a jury..even though a judge will cushion jurers on that point and inform them if the burden of prof ..require. .
And even there if the judge thinks they came up with the wrong vertices contrary to the evidence. .the judge can set aside the vertic and order them to go back or call a miss trial .
Of course the defender and crown csn appeal any vertic or sentence .
 
Vancouver Escorts