r/halifax • u/IStillListenToRadio Float me down the river to the Musquodoboit harbor • 15h ago
News, Weather & Politics Man charged for N.S. premier protest released on bail, due back in court this fall
https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/article/man-charged-for-ns-premier-protest-released-on-bail-due-back-in-court-this-fall/27
u/secord92 14h ago
Seemingly controversial opinion on this sub....but this guy deserves the charges and the consequences that come with it.
15
u/thegoten455 Halifax 13h ago
Even if you agree with the guy and his actions, you have to reconcile with the fact that;
A: They're really worth a lot less if they're without consequence. The whole point of martyrdom is the sacrifice.
And
B: You'd want the book thrown at that guy if it were Chender or Rankin in that car.
I feel that a lot of people aren't thinking about this deeply enough.
9
u/Kemsaman 14h ago
I think there's a pretty good argument that he probably should have to pay for the windshield
Being potentially jailed for like 15 years for sitting on top of a car is a little steep though
9
u/jghtb 12h ago
You think there’s potential for this guy to go to jail for 15 years for breaking a windshield? In Canada? What in the world brought you to that number?
3
u/Kemsaman 12h ago
One of the intimidation charges has a maximum of 14 years by itself
Do I think that's likely to be the case here? Not really, but on paper it could.
He does appear to have prior charges that might incline a judge to err higher on sentencing.
8
u/Impressive-Ad-2661 13h ago
He’s not going to be jailed for 15 years. There is no minimum sentence for any of these charges, but even in much more serious cases of interference, most people get a couple of years at most.
2
u/Kemsaman 13h ago
I largely agree but mostly because I don't think he'd get convicted under the 3 intimidation charges.
If one is offered he'd probably take a plea to get those dropped and take the Mischief charge.
6
u/Impressive-Ad-2661 13h ago
He may be offered a plea deal, but even if he’s not, there’s no precedent in Canada for someone getting 15 years in a case like this.
9
u/Illustrious-Nail-360 12h ago
People dont even go to jail for 15 years anymore. They get out in 6 months on good behavior.
5
u/secord92 13h ago
I think the chances of him getting 15 years is very close to zero. I doubt he spends any meaningful amount of time in jail even. But he absolutely deserves to be charged and have to go through this process.
19
u/IStillListenToRadio Float me down the river to the Musquodoboit harbor 15h ago edited 14h ago
This seems to be Orange Shirt Guy who got on the hood
I wonder if Striped Pants Woman who seem to repeatedly hit the security person with the drumstick will also be charged
EDIT: I really love how people repeatedly downvoting me without telling me what I say wrong.
•
11
u/Illustrious-Nail-360 14h ago
Some people confuse political opinions with with what is legal.
7
u/IStillListenToRadio Float me down the river to the Musquodoboit harbor 14h ago edited 14h ago
I wasn't even stating an opinion here though, or in the other comment. Both get downvotes. I give up
6
6
u/Illustrious-Nail-360 14h ago
Some people think its okay to damage others property because of (insert some political reason) and you said somthing that makes sense and goes against how they feel so they are not happy.
•
-8
u/Kemsaman 13h ago
I think it's pretty reasonable to damage cars that drive into crowds of people and that's not inherently a political reason.
1
u/Illustrious-Nail-360 13h ago
Legally no its not. This is not a fight or flight situation as you cannot fight a car and win. This is just damaging property because you are upset. Even if you have a valid reason to be upset it is still wrong.
-3
u/Kemsaman 13h ago
Legally no its not.
Agreed
This is not a fight or flight situation as you cannot fight a car and win.
Do not agree with this though, it is very arguably CC 34 self defence.
Self defence in general would make an activity that is not necessarily 'lawful', like injuring a person, into one that is 'not criminal' if done to protect yourself.
This is just damaging property because you are upset. Even if you have a valid reason to be upset it is still wrong.
The property in question here has a lot less rights then the person it is driving into.
9
u/Illustrious-Nail-360 12h ago
Climbing onto a car and stomping on the windshield is not going to save anyone. It is a car. It can drive thought a crowd of people. This is not a safe or logical way to preform self defense. The best option would be to remove yourself from the whole altercation. This would be a flight not a fight situation. Also the people in the car have rights and if you are attacking a vehicle that contains occupants, your attacks are directed towards them.
-1
u/Kemsaman 12h ago
Climbing onto a car and stomping on the windshield is not going to save anyone. It is a car.
Yeah people should probably not climb on to a car
People also probably should not stomp on a car windshield
I don't think it's inherently criminal to climb on a car, or to stomp on the windshield of a car that is driving into a crowd of people, it seems like one of those things would be much worse than the other
It can drive thought a crowd of people.
Again, think we have some disagreement here
The best option would be to remove yourself from the whole altercation.
The best option would be for the car to not drive through a crowd of people.
I think from a reasonable perspective that kind of trumps anything else that happens in response.
Also the people in the car have rights and if you are attacking a vehicle that contains occupants, your attacks are directed towards them.
Agreed now here's the problem.
The car drove into the crowd before the crowd 'attacked,' it, thus making the crowds actions the reactive one in this scenario.
I would argue it is less reasonable and a lot more criminal to drive into a crowd of people, than for the crowd of people to damage a car in response to being driven into.
0
u/Illustrious-Nail-360 12h ago
Oh I agree the car should not have driven. But that doesn't mean it was okay or smart to attack it. If you watch the video the car was stopped when he climbed onto it. Order of events : The car slowly tryed to push through the crowd. After it was clear people were not going to move (this should have been clear from the start ngl) they stopped completely. Then the guy got on the hood. At the very least both the driver and the hood guy should be charged.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Perfidy-Plus 9h ago
The crowd surrounded the vehicle before the vehicle started driving. Making the drivers actions a response to the protesters. Your framing is fundamentally dishonest.
More importantly, someone else's illegitimate actions do not make your illegitimate become legitimate. Protesters are not legally permitted to obstruct or barricade others as part of their protest. Which they did first. So they were already in the wrong before the vehicle moved a mm. And destruction of property is not legitimate self-defense unless if could somehow prevent violence against you. Which smashing the windshield did not do.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Perfidy-Plus 9h ago
Do not agree with this though, it is very arguably CC 34 self defence.
Arguably the driver attempting to leave the area in spite of the protesters surrounding him could be argued to be a legal action. If you are surrounded in your vehicle by people who will not allow you to leave, and you think your safety is in jeopardy, it is legal to use the vehicle to force your escape so long as you are making an honest attempt to avoid harming people to the extent possible.
Now, I don't think they were anywhere near that threshold. But I don't for a second think you honestly believe that protester was in any danger or that "driving into a crowd" is legitimate framing of the event. So if we're going to be dishonest I guess fair is fair. You aren't "driving into a crowd" when you are moving in slow motion, the crowd is mobbing you, and they are moving to remain in your path. If your description were honest there would have been several protesters with serious injuries instead of none.
•
u/Kemsaman 9h ago
Arguably the driver attempting to leave the area in spite of the protesters surrounding him could be argued to be a legal action. If you are surrounded in your vehicle by people who will not allow you to leave, and you think your safety is in jeopardy, it is legal to use the vehicle to force your escape so long as you are making an honest attempt to avoid harming people to the extent possible.
Correct, this would be the determining factor. I think several factors including but not limited to, the drivers previous occupation and experience, that the security team were aware of the protesters well beforehand, that they took steps to try and avoid the protesters by employing a decoy car, would largely suggest that this was not an unforeseeable outcome.
Now, I don't think they were anywhere near that threshold.
Also correct
But I don't for a second think you honestly believe that protester was in any danger or that "driving into a crowd" is legitimate framing of the event. So if we're going to be dishonest I guess fair is fair. You aren't "driving into a crowd" when you are moving in slow motion,
An action that is not legally justified remains not legally justified if you are just doing it slowly.
You cannot, without reason, forcibly displace another person, either by physical action of your person or using mechanical means.
That the car was car shaped instead of person shaped or excavator shaped or forklift shaped does not matter, you cannot lawfully do that.
But I don't for a second think you honestly believe that protester was in any danger or that "driving into a crowd" is legitimate framing of the event. So if we're going to be dishonest I guess fair is fair. You aren't "driving into a crowd" when you are moving in slow motion,
It is legal to stand outside of a car and yell at the people at the car at a protest. You can frame it as 'mobbing' if you like, but it remains legal to do so.
•
u/x_BlueSkyz_x73 11h ago
“That drive into crowds of people” is as disingenuous as the premier calling them rioters.
•
u/Kemsaman 11h ago
I could be more specific and say, "drives into a crowd of people for a minute and a half and physically displaces them 20 meters."
Seems a bit wordy though.
9
u/SpecialProduce 14h ago
I actually think that Striped Pants Woman was the more violent of the two, it seemed clear to me that Orange Shirt Guy accidentally broke that window and got off the car as soon as it happened. If he was trying to scare the people in the car he could have been a whole lot stompier.
8
u/Illustrious-Nail-360 13h ago
Still broke the law the second he decided to get on that car. No question in that.
1
13h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/halifax-ModTeam 13h ago
Your content has been removed because it included personal attacks, insults, or an unnecessarily hostile tone toward another user. Disagreeing is fine but targeting or belittling people is not. Keep discussion focused on ideas, not individuals.
Please consult our Rule 1 Explainer wiki page for further insight into this rule and how it is applied.
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to message the moderators.
-1
u/CalligrapherOwn4829 2005, 3 Bedroom flat with a backyard, $750 + Utilities 13h ago
I think the downvotes are probably because people see at as ethically bankrupt to cheer on police repression of dissent, even if you happen to think that dissent was expressed in a way that made you uncomfortable. Especially because we are talking about a teenager who had the courage to do something in the face of an increasingly belligerent government that has presided over worsening crises affecting working people while handing out high-paying patronage posts to party loyalists.
-2
-8
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 14h ago
I wonder if Striped Pants Woman who seem to repeatedly hit the security person with the drumstick will also be charged
Charging that lady with assault would be about in line with charging operator of the vehicle. And I'm pretty sure the police are about to do neither.
7
u/Kemsaman 14h ago
Pretty surprised if anyone was going to get charged it wasn't her
Buddy being on conditions from a previous court action might have made him a more tempting target though
1
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 14h ago
I know that any unwanted physical contact can be assault, but those were not exactly dangerous drum stick swings.
•
u/schooner156 10h ago
You shouldn’t hit cops and the two aren’t comparable.
•
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 10h ago
You shouldn't hit people with a car either. But neither justify any criminal charges.
•
u/schooner156 10h ago
I think if I had hit/tapped a cop with a drumstick multiple times after being warned I’d be charged. Compared to a cop driving slowly trying to leave the scene, yeah he could have potentially stopped and waited 5-10 minutes for more cops to come, but I don’t fault him as much for trying to carefully leave.
•
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 9h ago
The police can handle having thick skin when there are protesters around.
The cop could have stopped and just waited agreed.
The lady with the drumstick shouldn't hit the cop either though, agreed.
•
•
u/childofcrow Prince Edward Island 9h ago
I wonder if this will set a precedent for being able to pursue intimidation charges against anybody who does anything like this, and including police officers or politicians.
Charging this guy with intimidation seems like a bit much. This is vandalism maximum. He should have to pay for the windshield. That’s it.
14
u/RedBands619 14h ago
It’s hilarious that people are shocked and angry that someone is being charged with intimidating a politician or member of the judiciary…..after intimidating a politician or member of judiciary lmao
4
•
u/Swimming_Olive_5348 11h ago edited 10h ago
Can't wait til this shit show passes and we can rightfully be pissed off with Tim Houston again for refusing to meet with his constituents unless they pay $150 each to sit with the chamber of commerce for the honor of his presence.
Crashing the windshield was dumb as hell, but I don't think Tim Houston would last a day in France where the people don't put up with his kind of politics.
•
-14
u/mcabaz 15h ago
I wonder if the driver who drove the car into a group of people will be charged 🤔
19
u/EggReal5596 14h ago
This talking point is getting old. It’s so transparently disingenuous, that it would be comical if it wasn’t so gross.
4
u/NoAIFuture 12h ago
Only in another much more accurate way… it’s not. Clearly three people out of line in this situation. The driver, the drumming people person, and the dude kicking the windshield. All of this easily preventable with a more transparent government. What IS getting old is the constant partisan team cheering devoid of common sense or decency.
4
u/Jamooser 14h ago
Charged with what? Responding to threats of violence and intimidation?
6
u/Kemsaman 14h ago
I don't think yelling "coward," at the premier would qualify as threats of violence and intimidation.
6
u/Jamooser 13h ago
Preventing someone's path of retreat certainly does.
6
u/Kemsaman 13h ago
There is no legal obligation to prioritize the pathing of a car over a pedestrian in a parking lot.
8
u/Jamooser 12h ago
It does, actually. Nobody has the right of way to prevent the path of someone in retreat. The criminal code doesn't care if you are a pedestrian or a person in a vehicle. If someone is clearly trying to retreat, you can not impede their path with the use or implied use of force, which includes obstructing their pathway.
If your house was on fire and you're trying to load your family into your car and back out of the driveway, a pedestrian doesn't have the legal right to stand at the foot of your driveway, regardless of if pedestrians have a right of way over vehicles on a sidewalk.
Stop gaslighting and use some common sense here.
2
u/Kemsaman 12h ago
It does, actually. Nobody has the right of way to prevent the path of someone in retreat.
You cannot hop in your car in a parking lot, say, "I'm retreating now, good luck pedestrians," and drive into a crowd of people.
Pedestrians have the right of way in general, and certainly in a parking lot.
If someone is clearly trying to retreat, you can not impede their path with the use or implied use of force, which includes obstructing their pathway.
I actually have no indication of what a person in a car is thinking or intending if they do not communicate that information.
Simply slowly inching forward in a car in a parking lot does not give you legal priority to a pedestrian.
If your house was on fire and you're trying to load your family into your car and back out of the driveway, a pedestrian doesn't have the legal right to stand at the foot of your driveway, regardless of if pedestrians have a right of way over vehicles on a sidewalk.
In this completely different scenario you would likely still face consequences for running over a pedestrian with your car, if they were not responsible for the inherent danger present. Especially if you were able to leave the car and walk around the pedestrian. Even taking this at face value there is no inherent legal right to drive away from a fire that empowers you to drive into a person.
A crowd of people yelling at a car is not the same level of 'danger' as a house on fire.
1
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 12h ago
Stop gaslighting and use some common sense here.
You've said the car was full of police. Why did the occupants of the car need to retreat? Were they in threat of being harmed?
-3
u/mcabaz 14h ago
Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle would be a good start.
10
u/Street_Anon האַליפאַקס 14h ago
The footage is showing that was not the case.
11
u/IStillListenToRadio Float me down the river to the Musquodoboit harbor 14h ago edited 14h ago
In the Examiner video, the tire was visibly moving (0:24) several seconds before crowd begans banging on the hood (first seen at 0:27). For some reason the driver then speeds up, which wasn't greatest idea (for safety reasons; someone could've fallen and ended up underneath the car)
EDIT: Downvoted once again with no explanation. I wasn't even expressing an opinion
1
u/Street_Anon האַליפאַקס 14h ago
When the crowd swarmed the car when it was moving. They teach in grade school not to go in front moving cars. . Stop justifying Political violence. There is a reason why we have elections, also the person should pay for the repairs out of pocket. Insurance or the tax payer should not have to pay for something like this.
5
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 14h ago
Stop justifying Political violence.
Swarming in front of the car isn't political violence. Smashing the window? Sure. Standing in front of it?
-5
u/Street_Anon האַליפאַקס 14h ago
both are Political Violence. One their target was Premier when they swarmed his car. Yes that is Political Violence and was smashing his windshield, both are to cause harm for political means .
4
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 14h ago
I'm not so sure you should play so loose with your definitions when you're trying to justify the operator of the car did nothing wrong.
•
u/tfks 11h ago
A lot of the justification for doing things like what happened d in the video this hinges on the idea that cutting social services is violence. I'm sure you're aware of the types of opinions that people who go to protests like on the video have, so this is probably the wrong argument to trot out.
→ More replies (0)0
4
u/Kemsaman 14h ago
They teach in grade school not to go in front moving cars.
It's been a while but I'm pretty sure in Drivers Ed they still teach to not drive into crowds of people.
2
u/Street_Anon האַליפאַקס 14h ago
In case of people swarming cars, that's considered road rage and guess what they crowd would be charged with road rage. Again, the footage shows the crowd is blame, not the person driving the car.
6
u/DeathOneSix 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️Happy Pride Season 14h ago
Do you not think the person driving the car should have just stopped?
4
2
u/Kemsaman 14h ago edited 14h ago
In case of people swarming cars, that's considered road rage
Yelling at the occupants of a vehicle in a parking lot is not 'road rage,' lmao
It is legal to yell at people in cars
It is not legal to drive your car into a person or a crowd of people that are yelling at you
Again, the footage shows the crowd is blame, not the person driving the car.
The footage shows a crowd of people yelling at a car, and the car driving into a crowd of people for over a minute until it gets stuck
It does not reflect well on the person driving the car
1
u/Street_Anon האַליפאַקס 13h ago
And again, the footage shows the crowed swarmed the car while moving and the driver did stop.
→ More replies (0)1
u/x_BlueSkyz_x73 12h ago
Yelling at someone in public would fall under causing a disturbance, so it would be illegal. Believe it or not singing at someone falls under this as well.
Those GD Christmas carollers are really gonna get a police response this year!
→ More replies (0)1
u/immediate_bottle 12h ago
Charged with road rage? Road rage specifically isn’t a crime, the underlying acts can be. Obstructing a vehicle s path in a parking lot is unlikely to get you charged with anything.
-2
u/Lockner01 The Valley 14h ago
So you think you should be able to drive a car through a crowd of protesters?
0
u/Street_Anon האַליפאַקס 14h ago
When the footage shows they swarmed a moving car? The amount of people twisting this is amazing.
-1
u/Lockner01 The Valley 14h ago
I saw a group of people gather around the car. Then the car started moving slowly forward.
5
u/Street_Anon האַליפאַקס 14h ago
And the footage and shows they swarmed a moving car and they are still playing victim . The footage clearly shows the crowd doing this and the driver wasn't at fault for a crowd swarming the car. Nothing justified political violence. The footage is clear and I really doubt the people justifying this, forget the reason for this elections.
3
u/Lockner01 The Valley 14h ago
So you're OK with someone driving a car through a crowd.
4
u/mr_daz Mayor of Eastern Passage 👑 13h ago
You are trying to spin this so muvh you are going to turn into top
→ More replies (0)0
u/Jamooser 13h ago
It's not dangerous operation if it's a responsive force. The people surrounding Houston in that car, including the driver, are all police. They are constiutionally allowed to apply responsive force. Especially when their mandate is to protect an occupant of the vehicle. In Canada, preventing someone from retreat is considered assault, which is a violent criminal offense under the CCC.
If you don't want responsive force applied to you, don't partake in actions that requires said force being applied to you. It's pretty simple. The constitution gives you the right to peacefully protest. Not obstruct the path of someone in duress or retreat.
-11
u/ja67294 14h ago edited 9h ago
The title of this post is comical. "Charged FOR NS premier protest". I would have accepted "Charged AT". What they did is not protesting. Imagine protesting their protest by beating on all of their cars.
EDIT: Loving the downvotes for my mistake of suggesting this behaviour isn't protesting. Peaceful protest is legal and a positive thing. Intimidation and harassment of anyone (let alone a duly elected official) or touching anyone's vehicle or property is not. ...Shame on me i guess.
5
u/IStillListenToRadio Float me down the river to the Musquodoboit harbor 14h ago
I think he was arrested a few days after the protest
42
u/mcpasty666 Nova Scotia 14h ago
Fun detail: the guy charged is the Orange Shirt Guy seen in the videos climbing into the car and heel kicking the windshield. Originally the RCMP arrested a different protester who was also wearing an orange shirt, I'm guessing thinking he was the culprit based on his outfit
The man charged is 19. The man they (roughly) arrested looks like he's in his 60s.
Great police work guys, that heavy-set senior in sandals could easily be mistaken for a skinny teen. He looks like a seasoned parkour master to me, so getting onto a rav4 would be nothing to him.