Calling someone something because someone else isn't is not a good reason. I also didn't call him a saint. By your reasoning that is enough to call him a saint.Because you don't!
What gives you the authority to declare that? In law, the decision to prosecute does not emanate from the decree of maphi from tribe. Give an argument as to why there is a reasonable prospect of success. Remember, a jury is 12 people, and they need to unanimously (or maybe it's 10/12 not sure in Canada) agree on guilt. You are the only person arguing this position so right there I'd say it's unlikely.I declared him possibly guilty enough to be tried in front of a jury.
Given that you were not privy to the accumulation of that evidence, nor the witness statements and corroboration themselves, how are you qualified above the prosecution to decide what is unconfirmed and circumstantial? Also, from what I can see, the evidence of his past is not essential to the case anyways so even if it was tossed, I don't see much prospect of success.Which is what the Crown did by entering all of the possible but unconfirmed circumstantial evidence about Sheppard's past into 'evidence'.
Nah dude, he's already established that he can't trust THE MAN. THE MAN doesn't come from the streets, so he don't understand the streets. He don't understand bike couriers either, jive turkey THE MAN is.i'm pretty certain you guys just aren't capable of comprehending his reasoning.
whenever there's a proposed change to legislation, the law society of upper canada consults him first.