@DrewCouver56 Way too close. They are trying to talk to the guy and you are literally interrupting. Granted the three feet direction is confusing. You should be far enough back that they dont have to keep half their focus on you.
@RonnieYurick@ABarrafato50 Then dont say it wasnt his intent. I have zero issues with big hits. When they are clean. He went for the big hit but went dirty by hitting him in the head. Should have put his shoulder into his chest and there would be no discussion.
@RonnieYurick@ABarrafato50 The intent was to blow him up 100%. If the intent was just defense he wouldnt have given up the inside position and turned to use his shoulder for maximum impact. Otherwise he would stay on the net side and direct Bouchard into the boards.
@marissenmark What is the purpose of being deliberately misleading?
-“have repeatedly said” carries no legal weight. If true, codefy it into law and prove it. That would actually end the debate.
- SCC did not render any “decision” here. Lying to prove a point invalidates your opinions.
@vancolour Harm reduction would also be to actually lock up predatory drug dealers and drug debt enforcers for SIGNIFICANT sentences. Remove the predators and then you can deal with the mental health and addiction issues without all Guy’s old buddies pulling people back in repeatedly.
@Bratt_world@marissenmark@Mattxduchak Public statements are meaningless as they can say the opposite tomorrow. Codify it into law and then it will be believed. Shouldnt be an issue based all those public statements, right?