No, I'm not. I'm responding to a furious social media mob that acted out of sympathy for a grieving but vindictive family, to a string of demonstrably false rumors, and to a relentless crusade by a recklessly ambitious and careless newspaper reporter unrestrained by his editors. These have combined to try and convict this young man in the media, without benefit of an actual trial, rules of evidence, or even a defense, of an alleged crime he has never even been charged with. Meanwhile, my own independent investigation of the facts, the police officers at the scene, and the Halifax Police officers who re-investigated the case, all came to the conclusion Hayden bears no responsibility for the accident. The campaign of vilification has included threats of violence and death threats that police urged the Laffins to "take very seriously." It has had an enormous impact on a young man who is not only entitled to a presumption of Innocence, but has actually been cleared by two police departments. It has had a devastating emotional and financial impact on him and his family. It's a disgrace. You have chosen to encourage mob. I have chosen to speak out against it.

Donham: Questions if the crown files charges due to public pressure, not the applicability of the law Family/public supporters: Questions if police let the driver avoid a breath test to avoid any indirect responsibility, not an appropriate application of the law

 You just feel that your belief that the system would act due to some form of “pressure” instead of rule of law is better founded than the family's belief. And now you’re loading up on rhetoric, going so far as to call a family that lost their son “vindictive” in their pursuit of what they sincerely believe is “justice”. You think you know when the system errs, and they don’t, that your speculation is sound, and theirs isn’t. And you think they should be as empathic to the driver as you are. And you treat the anxiety of dealing with the legal system for the driver as a greater impact than the cessation of the life of Joneil Hanna.

 The family may be wrong in their beliefs, and you may be as well.

 The family is biased because the young man who died was their son. You have the potential for bias because you previously related a very personal experience that brings you great empathy for the driver.

Let’s tear down the rhetoric. 

There is no “furious social media mob”. There were active discussions where people expressed very strong feelings, sometimes inappropriately so. The range of views varied.

 People have emotions. They don't communicate their feelings like academics. “string of demonstrably false rumours” - The most noteworthy “rumour” was that a police officer had a direct relation to the driver, but instead had only an indirect one. Beyond that, you’d have to be specific.

 “relentless crusade by a recklessly ambitious and careless newspaper reporter unrestrained by his editors” - Translation: You took issue with Andrew Rankin’s persistent coverage.

 “to try and convict this young man in the media” - There is no such thing as a conviction by media in a court of law.

 “an alleged crime he has never even been charged with” - He’s been charged with another crime. However, most of the controversy in social media was a widespread belief that he had consumed alcohol before driving and that it was a contributing factor and that it would have been confirmed with a breath test.

 “my own independent investigation of the facts” - You’re not a trained police investigator. I’m not sure why your research should be taken with any greater credibility than anyone else, especially when you present your position primarily in the form of scolding, frustrated rhetoric.

 “the Halifax Police officers who re-investigated the case” - Halifax police were supposed to investigate the potential for misconduct in the investigation by the Cape Breton Regional Police. They are a collaborative policing agency. They were asked to do so by Chief MacIsaac. They turned their results over to the CBR Police. I don’t think the report has actually been publicly released (per CBC, March 20, 2019).

 [Outstanding situational awareness] “The report said police had no direct knowledge there was underage drinking at the party”

“campaign of vilification” - They don’t believe justice was served. They are pursuing it further. They take issue with the police’s handling in addition to their belief of the driver’s responsibility.

 “threats of violence and death threats” - I’m sure there were some threats, the vast majority of which no real intent to act was present. It’s not good; it’s also not exactly out of the ordinary and has always happened in society, often for much less serious matters. I assume nothing occurred, or you would likely have mentioned it. “entitled to a presumption of Innocence” - And he has that entitlement in court. The justice system isn’t so naive as to believe that any given individual, including alleged victims and their family and supporters, will start conducting themselves like experienced judges. They’ll do what humans do. They’ll speculate and form their own beliefs.

 “cleared by two police departments” - Technically, he was cleared by one police department on the scene. If they erred (a point of contention), doing so sacrificed the evidence needed to prove the possibility of impairment. The Halifax investigation was of the police themselves. They may believe the CBRPS handled it correctly, but they weren’t present themselves that night. The crown did, however, file obstruction charges.

 “devastating emotional and financial impact on him and his family” - it’s terrible. Whatever the factors were the lead up to it, it was an accident. The effects are, I’m quite sure, devastating for both families. I suspect everyone who knows anything about the case would wish the events of the night could have been avoided.


“You have chosen to encourage mob. I have chosen to speak out against it.”

 There is no mob. I’ve attempted to take an objective view. Having followed the news and much online discussion from the beginning, there was a great deal of factors that would cause a typical observer to be skeptical, and many were.

 You believe the driver was not impaired, and anything that supports your belief. And you use your considerable skills in language to apply the same kind of pressure you suggest has already influenced the decision of the crown. 
 At this point, the best you could hope for (as a consequence of your blogging) is that the crown is somehow paying attention to your scolding rebuke and you might have some form of influence, or you’re setting the stage to be able to say “I told you so” if the charges are dropped. Or you’re just trying to let Laffin know that he has one strong ally that believes in him. Or you’re so angry at the family and their supporters that you want to be able to call them things like “vindictive”. 

Whether the belief that the driver was intoxicated is right or wrong, it’s a hard sell to tell Cape Bretoner’s that a car leaving a party where there was some underage drinking, the car was driven by a young person who was present at the party, and it hits and kills a teen... but it would somehow be absurd for them to suspect that drinking might have been involved. They may be wrong. But it’s gaslighting to tell them that their suspicions are absurd. 

And let’s not suggest there isn’t precedent for handling of suspected impaired drivers to deviate significantly from what the law requires:
http://bit.ly/2ZwVXyy Even if all the family's suspicions are wrong, the factors leading up to this tragic loss of life of their loved one, are precisely the kind of factors we'd expect to give rise to such suspicions. For the most part, they really aren't all that elaborate.

Thank you Joe.

No, I'm not. I'm standing up to the online mob that wants to convict Hayden of a crime he didn't commit. It is a principle in this country, thank God, that accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hayden hasn't even been charged with an offense connected to the accident. The evidence—from several police officers at the scene who spoke to him before and after the accident, from the Halifax Police who reviewed the performance of the CBRM police, and from my own investigation—shows that he was not impaired at the time of the accident, and the police had no legal basis for demanding a breathalyzer test. Yet people waltz around demanding, "Justice for Joneil," which is a thinly veiled demand for punishment for Hayden. To judge from the comments after Judge Ryan committed him to stand trial for attempted obstruction, it doesn't matter what he is punished for, as long as vengeance is served. (NB: Judge Ryan strongly implied that the Crown's case for obstruction was weak.) The rush to mob justice is disgusting, and a disgrace to Cape Breton. Please stop encouraging it.

If you insist "there is no mob," there is no point in my continuing this discussion. You are either prevaricating or delusional. Hayden has been under sustained, vicious attack since the night of the accident, much of it online, but some of it in personal threats of injury or death. The entire online discussion is predicated on his alleged guilt, and that presumption is based entirely on rumors that circulated among upset teenagers in the wake of the accident. To the extent police had to put his house on watch to prevent vigilante violence. Your smug pretense at objectivity is a sham. You are fomenting vengeance, and you ought to cut it out. But you won't. You will continue your hateful pontification, oblivious to the innocent people you are hurting.

You've somehow found a way to convince yourself that a family who lost a loved one seeking justice (even in the form of punishment) is an unfamiliar concept in society - while simultaneously (perhaps conveniently) confusing "presumed innocence" in the courtroom with the thought processes of everyday people. The family of Joneil Hanna are under no legal obligation to surrender their belief that the driver may have done something illegal or that the police may have blown an opportunity to make that determination. They may not be right. But you won't be persuasive by declaring them vindictive and, at times, seeming to neglect that while you have valid concerns for Laffin, their son, Joneil Hanna is dead. That's what his family is dealing with. There's certainly nothing hateful about anything I've said. You just can't see it, or don't want to, because you've worked yourself up and got yourself firmly entangled in it. You haven't successfully persuaded people that you're right, so you try to cut them down with your thesaurus. Some people like to exploit subjective, exaggerated statements to enhance their point. So there's a "mob" inciting hate and making threats. Ok, very well, how many charges has the policing agency you've expressed such confidence in filed to date? No need to answer. It's an emotional topic. You've expressed your point of view, and that's ok. If this was something easy to agree on and resolve, there wouldn't be such a tremendous controversy surrounding it right from the get-go, and persistent until the present time. If we haven't found common ground, that's certainly not entirely unexpected.