"The video speaks for itself. It's very strong evidence, that video," [Judge] McCarroll said. "He's taking pictures. The next thing is, you know, he's down on the ground with three officers on him."The versions of the story told by the police are contradictory and inconsistent, and I didn't even get into how they set him up via his blog and then tried to deny any knowledge of knowing who he was before seeing him at the protest.
Police had testified earlier in the week that LeBlanc resisted during his arrest, but McCarroll held up a picture of the police walking LeBlanc peacefully across the lobby of the conference centre. "This doesn't look to me like someone who is resisting arrest."
The judge so thoroughly blasted the police that the defence attorney is confident the case will be won and has decided there is no need to call any of his witnesses.
I'm very glad the judge spoke up about all of this, but I'm more concerned about the actions of the police in the first place. Sure, this guy will probably be found not guilty, but how will that address the fact that cops are engaging in shady business to frame innocent people? And since when is it illegal to take pictures of a public place and event unless you are a journalist? Did I miss something in the Anti-terrorism Act? I didn't realize the full extent of the Act's infringement on civil liberties if that's true - and it was scary enough with what I did know.