Klappan Blockade -Defense fund for Criminal Charges Against Hunter

[RiverOtter]

Let's get something straight. I didn't make the decision to get the injunction, and I won't be in the position to make that decision again this fall. In fact, there are many decisions that I am not part of. They are way above my pay grade of...... NOTHING! I don't deserve the animosity you are directing at me, nor from any other person here that has a bone to pick with the Federation. I will gladly attempt to get answers to any questions some may have provided they are asked in a respectful manner. Short of that, you're going to get what you give.

My apologies to you Troy, my vent isn't directed at you personally. You took an "unofficial" position to explain where the Fed "might" be coming from and I was simply challenging that stance. My animosity is directed at the BCWF as a body, not you as an individual. Don't take it personal, cause it's not.

[RiverOtter]

.
There won't be any real precedent. It's an assault case, not a roadblock case. If he loses, it doesn't set a precedent that illegal roadblocks are now legal.

Really??? So you don't think it'll have any future repercussions for any other resident hunter(s) that are simply trying to pass an illegal blockade.

I hate to say it, but from what I've seen thus far with Mick's treatment, they're gonna nail him to the cross as an example for anyone else brave enough to exercise their legal access beyond a SN road block.

[Whonnock Boy]

Thank you.

My apologies to you Troy, my vent isn't directed at you personally. You took an "unofficial" position to explain where the Fed "might" be coming from and I was simply challenging that stance. My animosity is directed at the BCWF as a body, not you as an individual. Don't take it personal, cause it's not.

[HarryToolips]

Starts with the first trial, then someone appeals to the BC Court of Appeal, then someone appeals to the SCC (no direct route to the SCC for this kind of thing).

Good to know, thanks....

[bandit]

I have since been charged with "assault with a weapon " and "uttering threats to burn".

This is totally down to politics.

Last year I saw some guy reselling a used lift ticket in the car park at the local ski hill. There are signs all over saying it's an offence with a 200$ fine. He got caught by the parking attendant and tried to drive off. The parking attendant tried to block his car but he drove off anyway, pushing the attendant backwards 10 metres until he got out of the way. Exactly the same sort of vehicle confrontation as your case but I believe the attendant had a legal right to stop the driver and collect the fine.

The police already had a roadblock at the bottom of the hill and stopped the driver.I left my contact details with them as I had witnessed the confrontation. West Van police never called me to make a statement or give evidence in court, I can only assume they never pressed assault or any other charges.

[Dougielightning]

.
There won't be any real precedent. It's an assault case, not a roadblock case. If he loses, it doesn't set a precedent that illegal roadblocks are now legal.

What do you mean there would be no precedent set. precedent set would be a person would no longer be entitled to a legal hunt, or the right to travel where a person wishes, where anyone can stand in front of your vehicle in order to fulfill their own agenda no matter what or where it is, and call it assault.

[Gateholio]

Really??? So you don't think it'll have any future repercussions for any other resident hunter(s) that are simply trying to pass an illegal blockade.

I hate to say it, but from what I've seen thus far with Mick's treatment, they're gonna nail him to the cross as an example for anyone else brave enough to exercise their legal access beyond a SN road block.

Hard to say exactly. The problem is what one hunter does may be different than what Mick did and so it may not be applicable. There isn't going to be a precedent that says "it's okay to chainsaw a log off a roadblock and use your truck to push through" but it might help if it's ruled that a roadblock is indeed mischief and therefore Mick isn't guilty.

What will be most interesting is if it goes all the way to trial.

[Pemby_mess]

.
There won't be any real precedent. It's an assault case, not a roadblock case. If he loses, it doesn't set a precedent that illegal roadblocks are now legal.

There won't be any kind of legal precedent set; that's true.

However, it does lend legitimacy and justification to the action of blocking access to Crown land. It's the state's authority backing one party inconsistent with its own laws. That's really problematic.

If there is a conviction, it says to all those thinking of setting these things up; that their tactics work. Even the charges themselves speak volumes. As someone thinking of defying an illegal roadblock, the fact that he was even charged, tells me I will suffer at least a legal nuisance for trying to go about my day. It kinda of opens the province for thuggery. It's one thing for authorities to sheepishly stand by; quite an other for them to be a complicit rook in the thug's game.

I am not saying the BCWF should be funding individual assault cases irrespective the circumstances. That does seem to open a pretty stinky can of worms to me. However, I take RO's point about the organization dedicating resources in pushing the RCMP to do what they're supposed to be doing anyway. That doesn't seem like a worthwhile approach either. There must be a better way.

[elknut]

Just a stupid question ...Is there nothing in our Constitution that says we have the right to pursue our life without obstruction ....Seems to me the FN s have a right to set up a discussion area and we have a right to go around or cross it ..Neither side has the right to stop the other..The FN should be charged with assault for impeding Mr.Mc Kee ..He put his hands on Mr.Mc Kees truck ..

[Gateholio]

Even more interesting is where Micks formal RCMP complaint is dealt with.

Now THAT might set a real precedent. Ultimately the biggest win here could be the RCMP directed to enforce court injunctions and be held in contempt if they don't. I have no idea if that is likely but I would love to see something like that.