Thread on the Theriault case: There is a lot to digest in the judgement of Justice Di Luca in the cases of the two officers, Christian and Michael Theriault, and their beating of #DafonteMiller. Some key & quick take aways:

The judge concluded that Theriault *did* hit Miller w/ punches and with the metal pipe. He also did not believe many aspects of Theriault's testimony. However, he found that in the first set of events, the offence of aggravated assault was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt bc.

the self-defence argument could apply to that part of the interactions. It was possible that Miller had initially branded the pipe, and the immediate reactions, in the moment, could have been in self defence. In other words, the judge was left with reasonable doubt, even though

he concluded that Theriault had hit Miller w the pipe & caused his horrible injuries. Then, Theriault continued to hit Miller after Miller was "retreating." At that point, self defence is no longer available. A/th Theriault did at that point was an assault . However...

since the serious injuries *had already* been caused, these later attacks are no longer "Aggravated assault" (there is no maiming, for ex. as a result of these later attacks), but there was assault. So Michael Theriault is convicted of assault, not aggravated assault

I can appreciate that these distinctions may seem non-sensical to those who are not concerned with the definitions or interpretations of offences. But they are important. They are meant to protect all accused.

I'll repeat again that the judge did not believe many aspects of Michael Theriault's evidence. Notably, he found that the Theriaults were likely just trying to administer street justice. He was highly critical of their testimony.

But the self defence aspect raised a reasonable doubt with respect to the first beatings.

Finally, there is the question of why the Crown did not also charge Theriault with assault with a weapon. He would have been convicted of that, and the sentence can be higher. I cannot answer or surmise as to the reasons for the Crown's decision at this point

Having said all that...There is no doubt that Miller suffered incredible injustice. And we must be angry about what the officers did, and how Miller suffered. But if we want to fix these injustices, if we want to end racism, we have to also understand the justice system better

**judges can be wrong** they often are. But they must not base their decisions in criminal matters on what probably happened, or what the public wants, or what would be a fair moral outcome. They have to base it on the law and the evidence. & the std of proof is high

We should ask if the self-defence argument is similarly successful in cases where the accused are black & the victim white. That is an aspect of bias that becomes systemic & harms POC.

But changing the standard of proof isn't going to help us have more justice-- & because of systemic racism & individual bias, it is likely to hurt black & Indigenous people more