QC militias/paramilitary groups (merged)

[Danjanou]

Awww, too bad.

They look like a bunch of Air-Softers.  :

nope paintballers. look close at their C8/M4s uou can see where the hopper for the paintballs should attach. :

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I continue to swear off the CBC comments section, only to find myself back there looking at the trainwreck.

It only reaffirms that the small percentage of Canadians that take the CBC serious enough to comment, are mostly mouth breathing morons.

However, I still can't look away. Waiting for the tanker car to explode I guess ;D

Comments section of the Globe and Mail is just as bad.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Interesting photo. According to this article , Mr. Provost " is barred from possessing a firearm until 2013,..." Wouldn't this be a breach of recognizance or something like that?

 

[Maxadia]

Interesting photo. According to this article , Mr. Provost " is barred from possessing a firearm until 2013,..." Wouldn't this be a breach of recognizance or something like that?

No.

There's no date on the photo.

 

[Strike]

No.

There's no date on the photo.

From the article linked by the previous poster:

A former army reservist, Mr. Provost was arrested in 2003 after the city hall in the anglophone suburb of Baie d'Urfé was hit with anti-English graffiti. The Journal de Québec reported that he was found guilty of possession of explosives in relation to the incident, though he told the newspaper he had never intended to use them. "I didn't even have a detonator," he said. He is barred from possessing a firearm until 2013, the newspaper reported.

The photo, based on his FB page, was taken in 2009 and the embedded info that is on it will likely say the exact same thing.

 

[Maxadia]

Right, but thinking like a lawyer, does anyone have a photo with a date embedded on it, that wasn't photoshopped?

It would be a hard sell, I think.

 

[Container]

people have been breached off of facebook photos before.

The issue is probably one of getting a real case and not a chicken crap breach.

 

[Strike]

Actually, digital is one of the best things to happen to the legal system.  A digital camera will automatically embed the date the photo was taken.  Photoshop cannot change that.  It gets carried from file to file, including showing what changes were made to it.

 

[Container]

images are kinda taken on a sliding evidentiary value. The best being the .nef file, used like a digital negative, but you can generally look at the files and figure out if they've been tampered with. There are artifacts left behind when you use photo editing suites

 

[Maxadia]

So like I said, is there an image with a date embedded?

 

[Container]

There are sections devoted specifically to this type of investigation on digital images and others forms of media. I havent even needed these experts to get breachs on photos.

I have breached people off of their facebook photos without needing embedded dates etc. It cannot be the only evidence but it is taken into consideration.

If the photo has a better value, like .nef files, which logs the dates and changes made then its worth more. But your defence lawyerin' is not based on reality. If they really needed to they can look into all types of issues around the media itself.

EDIT- I mean .tiff logs everything. Not .Nef- you cant change an nef.

There must be another reason not to bother in this case- such as not wanting to legitimize idiots and waiting to get him on something better.

EDIT- To include PM that I sent thats on topic-

Hey man-

Having the dates is definitely to be preferred. The point is with some leg work you can get convictions without it. It takes some investigating however- they certainly couldn't lay and information based off "sometime between 2003 and 2013" breached his prohibition. They would need to be alot more specific.

 

[Maxadia]

Ok, Container, I now understand what you mean.  Far as I knew, you needed a date with the actual photo to appear to be considered worthwhile evidence.  So from what I was seeing, I didn't see how just a simple photo off an online new article could be construed as proper evidence.

 

[Occam]

Actually, digital is one of the best things to happen to the legal system.  A digital camera will automatically embed the date the photo was taken.  Photoshop cannot change that.  It gets carried from file to file, including showing what changes were made to it.

If you're talking about EXIF data, it can be modified extremely easily.  Photoshop only allows you to alter the image data, but there are numerous tools available to alter EXIF attributes.

If I have physical access to a file, then editing right down to the bit level is child's play.

 

[Good2Golf]

Some pretty interesting drills... ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0l3E8_FuFc

Enjoy!

...especially the "lying down as an inconspicuous green blob on a sandy road" drill at 2:31.  :nod:

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Another thing about a digital photo and the date on the file, a few pushes on the settings on the camera and you could make the date say 2197 or 1751 (depending on camera) which the person could then claim they are a time traveller, highlanders, or vampire.  Would build up a good insanity defence incase they ever are arrested.

 

[SoldierInAYear]

Awww, too bad.

They look like a bunch of Air-Softers.  :

Thats what I thought aswell at first glance 

 

[Remius]

These guys are yahoos.  Dangerous yahoos.  But yahoos nontheless.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I have to stop reading this thread - It's just pissing me off.