It was court testimony that was reminiscent of the classic Monty Python sketch where a customer returns a dead parrot to a pet shop that had only been purchased earlier that day. As the bird lies lifeless on the floor of the cage, the proprietor insists that the bird is “merely resting.”
And so a woman on trial for shoplifting from a Hamilton WalMart in 2020, insisted she was the victim of assault when surveillance video showed her repeatedly punching a store security staffer who was trying to keep her from fleeing with a large purse filled with stolen items.
Confronted with a video showing her spinning the security guard around as he held onto her purse the women refused to acknowledge what was on the screen, leading to this exchange with the Crown:
Q. Did you see that attack on the video that we watched – the videos that we watched?
A. As you can see in the video, he is aggressively like, swinging me around in the – in the video.
Q. I’m going to suggest to you, ma’am, that’s you pulling away from him…
A. That is not me.
Q. …and pulling your – you just have to let me finish my question. That’s you pulling away from him while he had a hold on your bag?
A. That’s not true. You can see in the video, it’s not me pulling away. It’s me being pushed or dragged around.
There was much more testimony along these lines. In a ruling that was handed down this week–months after the original trial — the judge concluded: I find that the accused struck (The guard) to avoid being apprehended for theft and because he was impeding her attempt to flee with the stolen merchandise. The accused was upset and using profanity because she was angry that (the guard) had detected the theft and was trying to prevent her from escaping. Her motive was clearly to resist (his) attempt to prevent her from leaving with the stolen items. Striking (him) in the head and face multiple times was not an act of defence or protection. I do not believe the accused’s evidence that she acted in self-defence .
Of the accused the judge wrote: “The accused’s evidence was an emotional delivery of denials of any wrongdoing whatsoever in relation to the events of July 9, 2020. She portrayed herself as the victim of an unprovoked attack by a complete stranger which left her with no choice but to strike him. Many portions of the accused’s evidence were implausible. She refused to make appropriate concessions when confronted with other credible and reliable evidence in the case, including the video evidence. This significantly compromised her credibility as a witness and caused me to reject her evidence on material points. Overall, I found the accused to be a witness whose testimony was unworthy of belief.”
The woman has been found guilty of assault and threat of death. No word on sentencing.
Would you be interested in the video from the Burlington Public meeting on the Bateman Land Swap in which 2 staff members say that no additional parking will be needed for Phase 1 of the recycling project?
They are now hurriedly trying to walk it back.
send it over email@example.com