RCMP Press Release RE Skull Arrest

What if it turns out to be, you know, who we hope it turns out to be.

it's been stated clearly already by GordB that it is not that person.

that guy was actually a doctor if you can believe it.

Yip. Retired, as I recall. Same guy that built his own hiking trail, which a few bikers promptly started to ride, and re-named the trail to "antagonizer".

Ahhh haha … CBC stripped a photo from this forum. Photo credit to "walleater".

they kinda botched mentioning this site tho

i wonder what www.nsba.com is tho?

I take it from her being charged under 247(1) - that no one was hurt (247(2) is setting a trap that causes harm) - That is extremely lucky. Although it could be just that the RCMP has no evidence of someone getting hurt yet.

Should someone have been hurt on one of these traps I would hope that they report it. For one, it takes the offence from summary to indictable (Crown may still go summarily anyway but still). For two, if as someone suggested this is a person who owns property in the local area - the victim of these stupid acts may have grounds for a suit against her and unlike most victims of criminal acts they may be able to actually collect directly from the criminal. Seems like cosmic justice (brought to you by your friendly neighborhood personal injury lawyer) - to have such an anti-mountain bike zealot be forced to pay for the damages she caused including possibly a bike or bike parts.

Could even use the settlement funds for a new trail and name it after her.

they kinda botched mentioning this site tho

i wonder what www.nsba.com is tho?

It's the super secret annexation of nsmb by nsmba. But don't mention it. The only rule of nsba club is don't talk about nsba club.

Could even use the settlement funds for some blinged out carbon rims

OW - My neck!

Defenses to these charges will likely focus on two potential targets.
1) Actus Reus (the action of the crime): I did not do these acts. This may be hard to argue if the evidence is clear enough. What will be hard for the prosecution to prove (if it goes to trial) is that the same person on the video footage is the same person responsible for any other individual acts of sabotage that actually posed threats to public safety and comprised the said crime. The person may choose to challenge the accuracy of the evidence if it does not provide a positive identification. However, the onsite trailhead arrest makes this approach less likely.

2) Mens Rea (the mental intent of the crime): I did not have the intention to do this crime. Generally, ignorance to an offence is not an excuse (unless one is insane). One may questions the value of a defense that is based on a person with a “mistaken” belief that what they were doing was legal, and that they were actually attempting to perform a community service by protecting sensitive habitat, or protecting public safety in the same means as a contractor may install speed-bumps on a road. The challenge for the prosecution is to demonstrate the intent of the accused was in fact to cause disruption, damage, or indeed physical harm to people or at least to demonstrate that a reasonable person would know that such actions are likely to result in such outcomes. Here, the defense may plead ignorance to the potential consequences of their actions, and argue that they had “no idea” that they were endangering people, and that they thought they might just be “slowing them down a little”. Here is where the “innocent little old lady” act comes into play, and a good lawyer does his or her best coaching. You must again become the innocent victim in all this. At first you were just defending the forests, now you must defend yourself as a victim of a punitive and overly harsh justice system that has misinterpreted the actions of a concerned citizen as those of a criminal. The defense (again assuming trial) may likely seek to uphold exactly that image I suggested before (the nice old lady on the bus) in the courtroom. The lawyer may even instruct her to wear a hairnet, and walk with a cane. Don’t be afraid to whisper or stutter Dearie. Show the court that you’re not a threat.

It’s cases like these that make you wish the best lawyers were prosecutors. Unfortunately, you generally have to work defense to make enough scratch to buy new bike.

[QUOTE=cerealkilla';2854417]It's interesting seeing the people rushing to defend the accused already. It really reveals some startling truths about people. Nice flame war on the global story page. I self-indulgently reposted my blurb, and some ass-hat started going on about how we need to look at both sides, as if there is a right side to trail sabotage. Needless to say, I think he only made himself look even more "asshattier" as the argument wore on.
I really should be working, and not trolling for trolls……but it's sooooooo much fun.:devil:

I just read the comments and this one guy is really unbelievably stupid.

I just read the comments and this one guy is really unbelievably stupid.

Wish CBC had comments open. That would certainly lead to some gems from the geriatric crowd that hangs out in their comments section.

Wish CBC had comments open. That would certainly lead to some gems from the geriatric crowd that hangs out in their comments section.

Judging from the avatars of some on the comments cereal referred to, quite a few seemed a little on the old side - and they definitely bitch-slapped the Defender of Trail Sabotage.

Judging from the avatars of some on the comments cereal referred to, quite a few seemed a little on the old side - and they definitely bitch-slapped the Defender of Trail Sabotage.

Have you ever read any CBC articles on bike lanes with comments? They have some true idiots over there, thus probably why the Fromme article is closed.

Hmmm … still no name, but isn't that about the right age for a certain frog-obsessed individual?

Also;

That's lame. So she could just go to any other of the dozens of trails in the area and keep on truckin'.

this is exactly what i thought…she should be banned from all biking trails. otherwise she'll end up somewhere else doing the same thing.

Have you ever read any CBC articles on bike lanes with comments? They have some true idiots over there, thus probably why the Fromme article is closed.

No, I haven't. The same issue over here, sort of. Bike lanes are a sensitive topic in bigger cities.

There are some folks lurking around in the forests, trying to sabotage multi-usage trails (which basically describes nearly all trails, apart from bike parks and sanctioned areas).

I can not understand such a douchy perspecctive, not at all.

It will up to the prosecutor to argue for such things, and I agree a total trail ban seems appropriate, with maybe occasional walks around the soccer field with a police escort :)

One can only hope that the prosecutor at least is aware of or consults those most directly affected so that their submission is properly informed when they (or if they) reach the sentencing stage. Again, this is why those impacted by the sabotage should submit comments to the RCMP on the matter. You are totally within your right to do so, and they must consider all evidence that may be relevant to the case. This includes corroborating witness statements that support the wider scope of activities in question, and secondly the impacts they had. While the former evidence may be helpful in the case, the latter may be considered in the sentencing.