David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦

Criminal Lawyer & owner of David Anber’s Law Office. Getting big results across Canada. Defender of free speech, individual rights & common sense.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

Unless there is a specific incitement to commit violence,

WORDS ARE NEVER VIOLENCE.

NEVER.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@ianmiles Why is nobody asking grok what happened to the guy ?

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

A great take by Scott Adams

[Ryan McNeil @RyanMMcNeil]

@CTVNews When Floyd died, media spoke of grief, justice & “mostly peaceful protests” as cities burned. No “Left-wing anger surges” headlines. But Kirk is killed & suddenly it’s “Right-wing vengeance.” Same playbook: soften the left, inflame the right. Pure narrative engineering.

[Dave @bellatordave]

@JimboStanford @atRachelGilmore In reality she gets hate because she spent 4 years telling us her biggest fear was a journalist getting beat or worse for doing their job….. She was right it finally happened.

There’s always a part of the story the left doesn’t know about.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

I’m not saying assume. You are. If a person sets up a high powered rifle and aims towards a person, from a rooftop, comes close to hitting them, and add to that it’s a controversial political person, you can draw the rational inference he intended to kill.

Is there another rational inference that’s non speculative, as a juror I’d say no. Every judge I know would say no. If there was a reasonable possibility of another inference then there would be a reasonable doubt. But there isn’t

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq Whether or not to draw an inference; and whether or not an inference is reasonably available is entirely in the purview of the trier of fact.

Elements, including intent, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The evidence here proves intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq That fact alone, is a complete answer to my question,

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq (In other words, had Kirk survived, without further evidence, you could easily prove an attempted murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt, where the issue was the intent to kill.)

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq It’s not an “assumption”. It’s an evaluation of what are or are not reasonable inferences.

No judge I’ve ever appeared in front of, even on a reasonable doubt standard, would infer that there was anything other than the intent to kill on the facts of this case.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@NicD903 @DWincheste55011 @PhilHollowayEsq This directly responds to my inquiry.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

Isn’t the basic rule of people who shoot guns never point the gun and anything you don’t intend to destroy?

Also, I find it hard to believe that there is an available reasonable inference that he intended to only wound Kirk.

I’m not sure in that situation he could be sure that the shot was fatal and his goal was to get out of there, not pause and see what happened. If he had the ability to fire off more rounds like an AR would, then I believe he would have, but I’m told this gun could only fire one.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

The issue I’m raising is not whether he could make the shot.

The issue I’m raising is someone who decided to kill a man, and has never killed a man, would be unlikely — even for an avid hunter — in circumstances like these to only take one shot.

If the gun could only hold one shot though, that answers that.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@watkinssuzette1 @PhilHollowayEsq That would be a complete answer to my query.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

I just responded this to someone else but perhaps you misunderstand me.

Your reply seems to address the skepticism that this kid would make the shot. I accept he could have made it. I was saying without experience killing a man and with the intention to kill a man, and without top level military training on discipline and experience knowing his ability, I doubt he would take a risk that he didn’t finish the job. I find it hard to believe he would have taken one shot only even if he was pretty sure he hit the first one.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

Being an avid shooter is not formal training as a sniper, experience doing it, or the discipline not to take another shot just to be sure in circumstances he’s likely never been in.

Your response is a valid response to “how did this kid make the shot” but it doesn’t in my view explain why he didn’t fire off 3 or more shots.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq Correct.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@damienslash By his own words, he’s still not actually sorry he did what he did.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

@NoLore Dishonest, arrogant, and devoid of any modicum of insight or self-awareness.

[David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦 @DavidAnber]

I sincerely hope the threats stop.

I also hope the vehement criticism of your deranged views continues.

You don’t deserve the former. You certainly deserve the latter as amply set out in numerous replies to this message of yours.

Serious question, do you even know the difference between these two categories of things? I’d really like you to demonstrate that you do.