Great points. As for my involvement – as the other post notes, it was minor and at late to the game. The other two to jump in did so faster, earlier, and had a bigger impact.

For the attorneys, I’m well-aware of these searches. They should expect witness uncertainty. They would be foolish not to expect uncertainty. I’m in the business of uncertainty – teaching – and recognize that there are always doubts and different stories. Are they reasonable? Maybe. Are they enough to raise reasonable doubts? Perhaps if I were the only witness, yes. Perhaps with other witnesses, security cameras, a weapon, finger prints, etc…any doubt about colour of jackets fades away. But, that is the world in which we live. It is not clear-cut and simple and lawyers would not expect certainty from witnesses. The difference between myself and other witnesses is that I would expect and be prepared for that line of questioning and I will tell the truth as I see it. If imperfect memory is equivalent to reasonable doubt, then no conviction could ever stand. But, these are different things.

This discussion reminds me of the movie Rashomon – first Japanese academy award winner for best film. A slew of people witness a murder and none of their testimony matches – and, all of it is demonstrably false. Even the ghost of the dead is conjured up to testify and her story is shown to be inconsistent.

Thanks for popping by, Harrison. I appreciate the advice and comments.

That isn’t meant to cast a pall on you relating your experiences, but public admissions such as you made about second guessing the coat colour, etc. for example could **hypothetically** provide a defendant’s attorney with a line of questioning that could create doubt in your testimony should it be required at a trial.

I empathize with your comments on blogs, real research, facts, etc, but at this point IMHO the responsible course is to do so judiciously.

Now having said all that -

AFAIC you’re to be commended for becoming involved thwarting in a crime of violence without regard to your personal safety that could have resulted in even much more serious events. I’m glad you weren’t physically injured, and I sincerely hope that the proper tribute and recognition is paid to both you and the fellow in the car who intervened, at some point in the future.

I had tried to be diplomatic with Jim this morning, but you are right, this is extremely backward. Hearing this story on the radio today reminded me that such a view is nuts. He accuses me of wanting a police state for asking for a couple more cops on the beat in downtown Winnipeg but he is fine with the state literally forcing millions of Canadians to live in situations that don’t work – and would subject thousands of women to violence. Yeap, clearly I’m the police state advocate.

@View From Seven:

Thanks for the quotes. Its vital that discussions on blogs revolve around real research, facts, statistics, critical analysis, and such. Otherwise, we run the risk of becomming the Winnipeg Sun.

From an item dated Mar. 12 in The Economist: “Other research shows that divorce and lower fertility are linked to less domestic violence.”

From Stevenson and Wolfers, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Feb. 2006: “Between 1976 and 1985 states that had changed their divorce laws to allow unilateral divorce saw their overall and severe domestic violence rates fall by about one-third.”

As for Divorce Law – you’ve got to be kidding me. Are you then advocating – in some cases – that abused persons who are living in violence should have no way of escape? Are you saying that the couple million happily divorced couples – who may be both better off – should be forced together by the police state? Repealing divorce would only send violence elsewhere and forcibly make millions of Canadians unhappy. The state should have no business dictating with whom citizens must live.

What MIGHT work is one of the things you suggest is the cause of delinquency… kids growing up in so-called “broken homes”…. To reverse this just repeal the damn Divorce Law already. Stir. Repeat.