this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
485 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and 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 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 1 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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

No. Shut up!

DON'T MAKE ME GET MY TRUCK!

[–] sparklepower@beehaw.org 1 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.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Objection!

On what grounds?

Their testimony will be devastating to our case...

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

"Overruled"

"Good call"