Courtroom saga ends for Raynard with absolute discharge

Rick says:

He admitted to the assault.? and was granted a absolute discharge.

So much for all the initial hype on facebook to support him as a "VICTIM" of violence.

Crown Attorney Debbie Kinsella clearly is not doing her job as the law mandates her too, if this was a different person on a different day, the results would not be the same, of that I am sure.

4/27/2010 4:04:53 PM

panzerIV says:

Who cares, he assulted a guy and got off with a slap on the hand how is this news? People get released all the time without a full page of news. A women got robbed that much mroe important then this and she got like 8 words.

Rick were do you find all those animations, i must say i enjoy them.

4/27/2010 4:51:17 PM

pieislandrefugee says:

so much for the "hate crime" some fools wanted to believe in.

hopefully thats a lesson to everyone who falls for the "I'm a victim" plea.

he should be sentenced for assault.

4/27/2010 5:47:58 PM

Rick says:

To: panzerIV

Thank you, glad you like them, some I create and a lot I have collected over the years.

I have one for almost every occasion and then some.

4/27/2010 5:49:01 PM

tannharr says:

What ended up happening to the suspects that assaulted Mr. Raynard? Keep in mind, he received the worst of the beatings, the others did not. He did however, bring a community together, and raised an issue that must be addressed immediately.

4/27/2010 5:58:50 PM

kellyelliott says:

It is people like Jake Raynard who make this city a dangerous place to live. He created his situation and in the aftermath rage in this city over a fight he started. One thing ive learned over the years here, is if youre going to act violent, violence is going to come your way. I hope the city can move on from this stupidity and that Jake Raynard has grown up!

4/27/2010 6:11:35 PM

TBinTO says:

Did any of you read the article?

This case is an example of why people are afraid to help people who are in trouble -- like the man who was robbed on the subway in Toronto -- no one helped him, afraid to get involved in the situation. Jake was reprimanded for defending himself and his acquaintances. Congratulations, Jake, for standing up for yourself, on the street, and in court. You are an inspiration to all people facing adversity through discrimination and bigotry.

4/27/2010 6:33:13 PM

kdawg says:

Rick, the visuals are a nice touch.

4/27/2010 6:49:19 PM

troubleshooter says:

Are you people for real? "He got off with a slap on the wrist", you say? No, he suffered severe injuries such as a broken eye socket and was left in a pool of his blood. He's lucky to be alive.

I suppose you guys would just lay down and let them beat you to death, or choke a friend to death? Might you step just a little tiny bit over that subjective line of self-defence, when you are caught up in things as they are happening very quickly and heatedly(hindsight being 20/20)? Jake and his friends were minding their own business, when they were first approached and attacked. We don't know what happened with the group who attacked Jake. I'd like to know. They could have been charged with a hate crime for all we know by the court, although the police didn't label it such.

4/27/2010 8:11:14 PM

firefly says:

A slap on the wrist? The guy got his face beaten in with a brick for defending a friend. Some of the posters on here are heartless.

4/27/2010 8:41:11 PM

baybrewer says:

I'm still waiting for him to appologize to the City for making us front page news. Not only did we receive bad press locally, but across North America and across the pond. This is what irks me the most, he was just as much of the fight as the other youths, but the "card" was played and made our City look bad to many. But I doubt the other info ever came out and received the same amount of press.

4/27/2010 9:40:13 PM

jennifer82 says:

Throughout this whole ordeal Jake has portrayed himself as an innocent and lone victim, a hero who sacrificed himself to save his friend. But it was Jakes friend that suffered from an unprovoked attack. Jake wasn't even injured from that incident, but later that night. Jake I will be looking for your picture on "Rock Star Glass Blower Monthly" - good luck with that you phony!

4/28/2010 1:13:42 AM

tsb says:

That's what you get for "defending" yourself.

4/28/2010 6:05:17 AM

tblb says:

1. Crowns don't grant absolute discharges, that's what the judge imposes. The Crown may agree that it's appropriate, but it's the judge that hands down the sentence.
2. Not every criminal act is worthy of a criminal record, which is a lifelong stigma, and each act has to be assessed in its factual context.
3. The correct phrase is 'reasonable prospect of conviction', not 'reason for conviction'. It means the evidence was lacking to support a conviction for anything more.

4/28/2010 7:56:54 AM

ken1 says:

The same thing that happened to Jake could have happened to anyone who stands up to abuse of someone straight or gay, male or female.
Let's see what happens when the other parties have their day in court. Those folks may have a history of being in trouble and things could go a little differently for them.

4/28/2010 10:12:37 AM

Allday says:

For all those angry with Jake I suggest you watch your friend get attacked by a hateful gang and see if you step up to defend them. His face was beaten with a brick, he obviously had reason to defend his friend with some extra force he was in a very dangerous situation. If jake had been killed, which he nearly was, Im sure you all would be singing a different tune.
@Baybrewer there should be no apology from Jake he was not looking for this, he made split second decisions, none of which were malicious.
@Jennifer82 it was hardly later that night the person Jake originally hurt quickly gathered some friends than shattered his face with a brick leaving him with metal plates in his eye sockety for the rest of his life!
Let's be compassionate here. way to be a good friend and a good citizen Jake!

4/28/2010 10:19:52 AM

oldnorthernguy says:

THUNDER BAY POLICE GOT IT RIGHT

Lets give the Thunder Bay Police Services some credit here. They got it right from the beginning. While thousands of people were massing in the park calling this a Hate Crime, the police were quietly conducting their investigation. They found no evidence of a hate crime and indeed correctly found that Raynard had contributed to the situation.

People get into fights every night outside of the Simpson street hotels. However when person with a different sexual orientation gets into a fight it can become a hate crime. Hate crime legislation is in place for a very good reason, but invoking it at the drop of a hat cheapens the meaning of the act, and undermines it's purpose.

4/28/2010 10:21:54 AM

nads74 says:

He got a lot of press in the beginning because he cried "poor me"! Phony is all he is, and the slap on the wrist is pathetic. (unlucky one that got hit with the brick in the face...that from report say he threw first, maybe be hear say or gossip, but I'm sure there is some truth to it)He was just as much of an instigator in that fight as anyone. I want to know what the others got for punishment!?!

4/28/2010 10:39:15 AM

pieislandrefugee says:

he should be made financially responsible for this mess.

4/28/2010 10:42:30 AM

firefly says:

I didn't realize Thunder Bay had become a Confederate state. Let's get our torches - pieislandrefugee, lead the way.

4/28/2010 11:21:16 AM

Jaded says:

Do the people defending this man remember the actual case? When Jake was charged, the details hit the paper. There was no split second decision, there was no self defense. This is the mistake people are making.

His friend was attacked, yes. Then his friend was safely deposited in a cab. Jake did NOT make a split second decision. He brought the weapon that ended up being used against him, the brick, and walked over to the McDonalds parking lot to confront teenagers. The "fight" was over. He re-opened it. He instigated the actual violence, with a group of teens! Why is this worthy of defense?

I'm with the "slap on the wrist" crowd. This man made a mockery out of actual hate crimes by riling up an entire city over an issue that should never have been an issue, because he chose to threaten 16 year old delinquents with a brick. That's assault with a weapon, any way you look at it.

4/28/2010 11:22:23 AM

allday says:

It was a split second decision to defend his friend.
then afterwards they chased him and he grabbed a brick as his last defense. there are witnesses at the mcdonalds who saw him banging on the doors to let him in before the brick was ever picked up!
YOu People are heartless, Jake is a good man. These roaming gangs of
teenagers are dangerous and they were the instigators. this was a hateful crime and I hope the judge cites hate as part of the sentencing, even if its not filed as a hate crime.
All these comments just go to shot how intolerant Thunder Bay can be. Im with Firefly, when did we become a confederate state....
go habs.

4/28/2010 12:46:16 PM

troubleshooter says:

I also must comment on all the sympathy for the young men who beat Jake and left him to bleed to death. Are you guys complete pacifists? Perhaps you would invite this upstanding young men to sip herbal tea join hands, braid hair and sing peace songs. No, I think Jake were not a gay man, if he were one of the good ol' boys, you'd be saying lock these delinquent young "punks" up and throw away the key! You'd be calling on and end to the Young Offenders Act, no leniency at all.

4/28/2010 1:35:19 PM

troubleshooter says:

Oh, and one more thing: I think if Jake weren't gay you'd be calling him a hero for fighting back against these youths who proved their propensity for horrific violence, even if Jake had gone much farther.

4/28/2010 1:55:46 PM

gone for good says:

Biggest problem in Thunder Bay is that crime is a business. And always will be. You look at someone the wrong way. You get charged. Then a lawyer makes a killing. You go to court. They toss the charge. And your a few grand out of pocket. This whole mess never would have made it to court back in my day. But money is the bottom line here. And I think that is wrong.

4/28/2010 2:00:10 PM

panzerIV says:

troubleshooter it has nothing to do with the fact he is gay. A fight needs two particpants and he got the crappy end of the stick. If he had decided to not go down the alley and grab the brick and say go to mcdonalds then this wouldnt have happened. He is no victim either, he put Thunder Bay on the mainstage for being a anti-gay city and wasted all those people time who went to watch his rally.

4/28/2010 3:04:31 PM

hobbesian_scholar says:

troubleshooter: It could be an interesting battle for those trying to call for an end to the Young Offender's Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act replaced it over seven years ago.

4/28/2010 3:09:02 PM

AJ147 says:

It tells you how extremely poor our local media (print, radio/tv, & online)is when they sensationalize a story before they check it out as when this story first broke. Journalism used to be when you gathered the facts first.

4/28/2010 3:35:50 PM

Me n My Opinion says:

Troubleshooter, I don't think I read any posts on here that said that either he deserved it, or that anyone is sympathizing with "the gang". People are upset because Jake outright lied in order to advance a cause. If it had been found that all of his original claims were true and accurate, these posts would be a lot different. He would have a ton of supporters. If I were a part of the gay community, I'd be very upset with him, because his actions, through his untruthfullness, has set back a lot of the gains made over the years. People's comments on here have nothing to do with the fight itself. It's the principle. It's the part about gaining our sympathies through his lieing that has people upset.

4/28/2010 4:33:52 PM

Jaded says:

Oh for crying out loud. I'm so tired of the extremes. If someone believes that Jake should have been convicted for assault, then they must be:
a) against homosexuals
b) sympathizing with the teenage attackers

For the record, I happen to
a) be bisexual
b) think Jake AND the teens involved deserve to be convicted of assault.

@allday
You're mistaken. There were two incidents that night. The "split second decision" you're referring to was part of the first incident. The charges are related to the second incident. Here's the details, by the way, for those who seem to be forgetting, or ignorant of the actual facts.

---------------
"About 20 witnesses were interviewed including seven independent witnesses.

In the first incident police say three males, aged 26, 30 and 30, exited the Pier 61 bar on North Cumberland Street and came into contact with two males aged 16. One of the 30-year-old males was allegedly assaulted and the other 30-year-old then allegedly assaulted a member of the opposite group; police say the two parties then parted in opposite directions.

The 30-year-old victim and the 26-year-old then left in a cab without incident; after they left, Herman said it is alleged the other 30-year-old then walked towards McDonalds where nearly a dozen people had gathered.

An exchange of words occurred between the 30-year-old and the group and it is alleged he assaulted several persons in the group. He was then allegedly assaulted by several males."
-------------------------

Cut and dried, as far as I'm concerned. He could have gotten in the cab with his two friends. Instead, after the incident was over, he walked over to the McDonald's parking lot and confronted the teenagers ... this 30 year old man .... and in the process, assaulted several persons in the group. They then beat him to a pulp. I think they went well beyond the measures of self defense, and so they were rightfully charged with assault. And Mr. Raynard, the 30 year old grown adult man who assaulted several teenagers should ALSO have had to pay.

4/28/2010 5:41:41 PM

gord says:

Why are we giving this creep another fifteen minutes of fame. He has proven he is not worthy of our time nor attention.

4/28/2010 5:41:59 PM

Kristien Michael says:

Debra Kinsella, Crown Attorney in this case said : "Mr. Raynard went to break up that altercation, but that in doing so he exceeded the bounds of defense . . . of a third-party." Excerpt
So what exactly are the bounds of the defense of a third party when I leave a bar and one of my friends is being gay bashed I would like Debbie Kinsella and the TBP to define this for me, and if these 'bounds were broken' what specific action was taken by Mr. Raynard that was considered 'excessive'? Frankly I feel our community has a right to defend itself from these kinds of attacks, as they are all to frequent, and it seems to me that this is what is often done in these cases: Someone attacks someone for being gay, the police are called, it is called a skirmish and not a hate crime, and then the LGTB member gets in trouble for defending themselves. In my assessment the crown needs to define this for the public in greater detail, since it was her assessment of the evidence that led her to believe a charge should have been made in the first place, and if a charge was merited then please explain to the public the limitations of self defense of a third party, so we can then ensure that when one of us, or someone we are with that is our friend, is punched or kicked in the face that we stop this with the apparent lack of restraint that we are 'supposed' to have? In the Crown's own words he was breaking up an altercation. This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. When you are breaking up an attack on anyone what is 'brash' when you are looking out for your personal safety and that of others, and in consideration of the complete lack of regard for Jake's health by the actions one of these individuals took almost killing him with a brick obviously he was dealing with a sociopath who likely appeared to be unpredictable and without regard for any sensibility or reason.

4/28/2010 8:57:50 PM

firefly says:

How did he lie? In the inital story reported on tbnewswatch it said:

"He said the last thing he remembers is banging on the window of a nearby fast-food restaurant for help before waking up in the emergency room of Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre on Saturday afternoon."

His story up until then aligns with what the police outlined from eyewitness accounts. I don't see any members of they gay community speaking out against Jake, so I guess they don't have a problem with him. It just seems to be people not part of the 'gay community' who think he's a liar.

4/28/2010 10:24:55 PM

Kristien Michael says:

and to add another thought:
Canada
Section 494. (Criminal Code)[6]
(1) ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSON
Any one may arrest without warrant(s)
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person

According to this section, Jake had every right to arrest this person, and so did any bystander, after witnessing what he did, or would the police have preferred that someone just got away with a gaybashing in Thunder Bay? Clearly Mat was gay bashed--- from the outset it has been stated that a group of men came up to Matt outside of a bar and at some point in time called Matt a faggot and attacked him. The hate crime occurred in this case to Matt initially, and yes if at all possible I would attempt to leave this situation without violence, but I would also not let someone get away after obviously assaulting my friend. Jake you were courageous, and not many would have had your courage, and I stand by you. I do not at all believe that you acted 'brashly' in fact I feel you acted courageously, and it is only your non-violent, and gentle nature that is making you feel any kind of guilt for your actions, at least as I see it.

4/28/2010 11:02:29 PM

troubleshooter says:

Hey hobbesian, yes I know it's called the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Sometimes I also refer to Unemployment Insurance when the name was changed to Employment Insurance. A lot of people still refer to Port Arthur and Fort William 40 years after it became Thunder Bay. Excuse me for living. Do you have anything else to add to the substance of this discussion? Me n My Opinion: It's a lie to say Jake lied. What do you think he lied about? I hear this charge made over and over without anyone saying what he supposedly lied about. Jake said all along he picked up a brick for self-defense. Obviously the court agreed. Jake was surrounded, and did take the brick for self defense. He also did go to McDonald's to plea for help. There is no lie here. Might not any of us take what was available to defend ourselves if we were surrounded by a gang, which had already proven its propensity for violence? What if you thought they were out to kill a gay man because of their homophobic remarks and what if you actually were a gay man or possibly perceived as being one? Maybe he should have just invited them to discuss gay culture and social issues over double-doubles at Timmies. Yes of course it takes more than one person to have a fight, panzer. What is your point? To negatively affect Thunder Bay's reputation, all that needs to happen is for people to look at this cold-hearted comments blaming the victim, not the fact that Jake was nearly beaten to death amid shouts of homophobic epithets. Yeah, that Jake sure was sneaky, making us believe he was the victim. Being approached, having his eye socket broken. He sure was a crafty, clever snake! Let's hurt him some more!

4/29/2010 2:40:18 AM

troubleshooter says:

Jaded: Why do the ages matter, here? People keep dwelling on that. The fact that these were teens does not mean they are victims or are entitled to some kind of special accommodation when they brutally attack someone by the one they attack. You agree that they beat Jake to a bloody pulp. So what if he is 30, 45 or 50?
Jake didn't get into the cab because his way was being blocked by the perpetrators, or he thought the danger had passed. He then went to McDonald's to get help, perhaps seeing that the danger had not indeed passed, that a larger group had gathered. Jake is NOT a creep at all, to the person who called him that. What is wrong with some of you people??!! We all have the right to walk anywhere we want to in this city and in this country without being harassed and nearly beaten to death. We have the right to defend ourselves and our friends. I have never seen this amount of hatred for someone who was nearly murdered. The only concern is that Jake's speaking out might make Thunder Bay look bad, even though Jake has nothing but love for this city, and has no bitterness, despite what happened to him. The hateful and clueless comments against Jake being posted at locally produced sites make Thunder Bay look bad.

4/29/2010 1:22:44 PM

collie says:

WHY????

This is CRAZY. Bottom line the only people who know what happened EXACTLY are those that were THERE. Now have read all the diff sides NOW somewhere in between all is the TRUTH.
THIS was made out to be something it WASNT.
HATE CRIME was never the case.
THERE was 2 separate incidents 2nd could have been avoided. DID this go to FAR YES. WHO is at FAULT. ALL and ALL should be punished. I wasnt there but if Raynard did go to McDonalds with a brick in his hand to confront the teenagers WELL that was DUMB. and sorry to say if someone came at me with a brick after assaulting others around me YES THEY ARE GONNA EAT THE BRICK. BOTTOM LINE this whole incident could have been avoided by LEAVING or going back into the bar. BUT in the end ALL are guilty of something.

4/29/2010 5:08:34 PM

just_saying says:

How many people in this city get the crap beaten out of them every single day in this city and no one hears about it. people getting beaten so badly that it requires immediate and prolonged medical attention. people who get beaten up because of the way they dress, talk act, because they are a woman a man or a man that looks like a woman or a woman who looks like a man or a homosexual male or female a senior or a child with or without a brick to the face. wheres all that media attention? how about next time a group of people are harassing you and you dont want to end up in the hospital or jail for that fact...dont go back with a brick in hand. and if you do and end up with a smashed face perhaps you deserve what you get...just saying.

4/29/2010 6:11:31 PM

John L says:

Why did this issue have to become a gay vs. straight one? This kind of thing happens all the time and although Jake's injuries were severe, he is certainly not the only person who suffered such injuries. He is the only one who got so much support though. Why is that? Seems to me that the discrimination favours homosexuals when it comes to these things. I think Jake suffered enough with his injuries and I don't really think a drunken fight is a big deal but I do think that making a non-issue into Thunder Bay's biggest issue last year is wrong.

4/29/2010 6:31:34 PM

troubleshooter says:

Collie: How do you know this wasn't a hate crime. Jake and his friends were outside a known gay bar, after closing, minding their own business, and were approached and called homophobic epithets and beaten by the youths. This was the first incident. Now, during the second incident, Jake was walking and suddenly noticed as he said "they were everywhere...seemed to be coming out of the woodwork." In other words, he felt surrounded, no where else to turn. He went to the McDonald's to get help. Before he did, he picked up the brick for self-defense. The charges against Jake for assault with the brick were withdrawn very early in the case. Even if he were confronting the group about what they did previously, he has the right to do so without being assaulted and is not guilty for that. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't have done that, personally. Had he meant to confront them, he didn't want gay bashers to get away, as Kristien said. You don't know that the second incident could have been avoided. You're willing to give these youths who had already choked Jake's friend Matt, the benefit of the doubt. You think they would have suddenly changed their total character and became non-threatening by the second incident? Did they have some kind of major spiritual or intellectual awakening? Were they now really all about leaving Jake alone, when they had first approached, harassed, and acted violently at the start of the night? Does that seem logical? Was Jake to give them the benefit of the doubt and waited until he was on the ground bleeding??!!

4/30/2010 12:30:47 AM

troubleshooter says:

collie: you said if someone came at you with a brick, "YES THEY ARE GONNA EAT THE BRICK." So, bottom line, you boast that you're capable of the same extreme violence perpetrated against Jake. I don't know how else to interpret your expression in caps. I'm disturbed. Yet, you say the events of that night that left Jake nearly dead, went too far. Now who are what did you say was crazy again?

4/30/2010 2:41:35 AM

baor says:

He should of got into the SAME cab that he deposited his friend into THEN called the police. But no, the police investigation as quoted by the chief showed that he went and started a SECOND altercation and got his arse handed to him. No pity party here.

4/30/2010 11:16:23 AM

collie says:

Shakin Head

I DIDNT know that the bar was a gay bar hadnt even heard that until this incident. WAS very surprised when heard that. As for all the rest THERE is more than one side of story. YOU have to give benefit of the DOUBT to all. READ what I did say !!!!! From my understanding a confrontation occured outside of BAR on Cumberland st. Between 3 Adults and a Couple of Teenagers. WHAT happened to start this as to what was SAID or what was Done. NO ONE except the people who where there can say. AND MOST LIKELY BOOZE is a FACTOR as well as TEMPERS. NEEDLESS to say this ended with 2 Adults leaving in a TAXI. SO it should have ended there. BUT for some reason DID NOT. THEN Raynard on his OWN goes to confront the 2 Teenagers with a brick in hand. Unfortuneately there isnt only 2 anymore. AN assault occured then started by Raynard hitting first. BY my saying "and sorry to say if someone came at me with a brick after assaulting others around me YES THEY ARE GONNA EAT THE BRICK." Refering to new persons on the scene AND dont tell me if it was YOU there and someone came at you with a brick you wouldnt do anything. ENUFF said this whole DEBACLE could have been AVOIDED. "Sticks and stones WILL break bones, but NAMES will never hurt you." THAT saying has a ring of truth???

I dont like that fact that this HAPPENED!!!
But I am sick and tired of hearing "HATE CRIMES" AND "GAY BASHING" WHEN THIS WAS NEVER THE CASE. Hate Crimes is about RACIST Violence like what happens with the KLU KLUX KLAN and NEO NAZI and all the others WHO TARGET ,HUNT DONE, AND DESTROY PEOPLE who dont suit their IDEA of RIGHT.

This whole thing has been BLOWN WAY out of Proportion. IT has been turned into a blemish for the Neighbourhood, Bar, City and the people of Thunder Bay. BY being made something it wasnt. READ ALL COMMENTS here are a couple I agree with (just_saying says:) and (John L says:) SCROLL DONE im not gonna do all the work for ya. even (baor says:) the truth.

4/30/2010 1:38:17 PM

troubleshooter says:

baor: a.) the cab was surrounded by the violent youths, and Jake worried about his friends getting in, or b.)Jake thought they were all gone and the danger had passed, and just wanted to go home which was perhaps close by c.)he had gone to make sure they didn't get away.
There seems to be some confusion here at this point. However, it doesn't matter. In any scenario, Jake was within his rights.
As for "starting" the altercation, we should question what that means, as the court obviously did when they gave Jake an absolute discharge. Say you suddenly find yourself surrounded by a large, hateful group, some of which had already proven their violence. It may be reasonable to assume they are coming to strike you by their body language, their words, and their past behaviour. It may not be reasonable to allow them to get in the first blows which could be fatal to you. They may have actually murdered Jake had he not raised a hand to defend himself! People have the right to expect better safety and more respect for their lives. Life shouldn't be considered so cheap that people can make these mindless reactionary comments such as "he deserved it", "he got his ass handed to him", "I'd make someone eat a brick", "no pity", etc. It's no wonder there is a problem with extreme violent crime in Thunder Bay. It's not Jake who is the problem. It's the uncivilized attitudes of many of you here.

4/30/2010 2:02:48 PM

troubleshooter says:

John L: I have a solution to end this supposed "attention" on gays. The next time someone sees people outside a gay bar, leave them alone and keep walking. Don't verbally harass with homophobic slurs. Don't physically attack. This way, allegedly uppity gays and all those concerned will have nothing specific to draw attention to, nothing to protest. This will really mess up any chance for publicity and stick it to this group in a manner of speaking.
Collie: They didn't just leave it at calling names. However, the specific names they did use, the fact that they were outside a place where that group they name hatefully, gathers; is important to consider in terms of motivation. Unless it was a question of my life or their's, I wouldn't beat someone almost death with a brick. There is no indication that their lives were in great peril. You'd have to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't, based on their past behaviour. I give Jake, the benefit of the doubt. You don't give Jake any benefit of the doubt, while at the same time pretending to be neutral.

4/30/2010 5:41:48 PM

troubleshooter says:

By the way, why is no one saying these violent youths should have just walked away??!! They certainly didn't. No, instead,they formed a larger group. But I'm sure the intention from these fine, upstanding citizens, wasn't malicious. Perhaps they just wanted to discuss the latest video game or rap CD. You know, they maybe just all wanted to take a little break from harassing and choking gay people outside of a gay bar. The more, the merrier, right?

4/30/2010 5:50:29 PM

pieislandrefugee says:

well put collie. You summed it up nicely.

troubleshooter, if you think starting restarting an altercation by walking back into it, (while you were already well removed from the situation) is self defence, youre not playing with a full deck.

face it, altercations outside of bars happen all the time. it doesnt matter what started it, thats irrelevant. This guy went looking for trouble with a brick, and he found it.

he got what he deserved. maybe even less in my opinion.

4/30/2010 5:51:21 PM

TBinTO says:

pieislandrefugee said: "he got what he deserved. maybe even less in my opinion"

So which is it... are you condemning violence or advocating it?

5/1/2010 11:48:19 AM

troubleshooter says:

Well, pieislandrefugee, that's not what I said at all. You put all of the blame on the victim. You and I have the right to walk where ever we please. We have the right to confront who has wronged us or our friends. The fact that we have confronted them does not give the other party the right to commit physical violence. It does not make us the guilty party to any degree. You are living in the wild and lawless American cowboy west of long ago, not in the legal and civilized reality of Canada today. Thunder Bay isn't the wild frontier. Now, if you want to change the laws, by all means you are entitled to start a movement and try to gain supporters with this aim. It would mean a lot more people would be put in jail, and a lot of extremely violent sociopaths who have no respect for human life, to the point of attempted murder or actual murder, would be going free. The fact that the victim showed himself or herself in their presence again would be used a defense for their actions. There seems to be a lot of support in Thunder Bay for this opinion, given the number who agree with your comment.
Having said all that, we don't know that Jake was even intending to confront this large group that had gathered. He could have come upon them suddenly, and had to go past them to get to the McDonald's to get help.
Again, your argument that it doesn't matter who started it, nor any possible desensitization to violence outside of bars, doesn't change legal reality which would challenge your notions.
You are saying Jake got maybe not as much as he deserved, pieislandrefugee. Are you saying Jake deserved to be murdered? Would this also apply to the violent teens, who had formed a larger group after the first incident was over(for what intentions do you think)? Had Jake been as violent toward them, would they have deserved it in your mind? One more question, it's just a question, relevant given your position that people deserve to be victimized by extreme violence, and the fact that you suggested I'm the one not playing with a full deck: are you a sociopath/psychopath?

5/1/2010 4:42:25 PM