Canadian Politics Today

I forget where I read it, so can't provide a link, but it seems he had a long gun that he started with, but it jammed so he went and got a handgun and used that.  Both weapons were found in his car. 

Coming in, shooting, leaving, coming back and using a different weapon might be why some people thought there were two shooters. 

Most of the media has reported that a pistol and 2 [assault] rifles were recovered from his vehicle. There are some out there claiming that he owned a CZ-858

Quote from: Blueblood on February 02, 2017, 01:36:29 pm

when should a lawyer go to their client "your guilty, and it's time to face the music".

Honestly, never.

Why would I say that? Because the lawyer is not the judge nor jury.

But if you don't have enough money or are a pro-bono client, they'll encourage you to plead guilty regardless of whether you are or not. 

Quote from: Blueblood on February 02, 2017, 01:36:29 pm

when should a lawyer go to their client "your guilty, and it's time to face the music".

Honestly, never.

Why would I say that? Because the lawyer is not the judge nor jury.

They are also supposed to not mislead the court. 

One would think part of providing legal advice would be to tell their clients that it's over and a guilty plea would spare the court an expense of a trial which comes with plea bargaining.

Quote from: Blueblood on February 02, 2017, 11:06:22 am

 A problem with this will be the lawyers drawing this mess out and soaking the taxpayers and courts time.

Would you prefer Saudi style where the trial takes a day and then they slice their head off?

to misuse a quote:          Our system of justice is terrible, except when you compare it against all the alternatives...

No, my issue is with the lawyers not seeing the writing on the wall and deciding to soak the taxpayers and clients for a large payday to concoct some far fetched defence.  Misleading the court is a big no-no and a lot of defence lawyers flirt with it.

I have no issue with the system itself allowing clients to defend themselves, my issue is with when lawyers given mountains of evidence in disclosure dragging out cases when they know their client is guilty. 

So if your lawyer tells you "you're guilty.  We're just going to have to live the obvious facts..."

You think a client is going to say "Duh...  yeah...  let's not worry about it then...   off to jail for the rest of my life"

Defence lawyers don't get to decide to not vigorously defend a client.

It's not just defending it's representing the client.  Sometimes part of that representation is saying your screwed let's see what we can work out so that the judge sees we are not putting society through the expense of a trial.  Should defence counsel advise their clients to lie or defence mislead court to vigorously defend their clients?

...  Should defence counsel advise their clients to lie or defence mislead court to vigorously defend their clients?

Are you claiming defence lawyers advise clients to lie? I think they'd be in a pretty mess should it be found that they did so. Disbarment, fines, perhaps prison. Mislead to vigorously defend clients is absolutely how the adversarial common law system works and the defence thinks their misleading will not be discovered.  But it is difficult to mislead when the Crown has all sorts of evidence gathering powers at its disposal.  It is up to the Crown to prove the case, not up to the defence to prove innocence.  I think you may be happier with a more European style  criminal law system. I probably would too.