Quote:
Originally Posted by wildwoods
You’re dead wrong. He has no obligation to do that whatsoever before trial. Gimme a break.
Would you? No, you wouldn’t. Period. Instead of just trying to win the internet and be right, I challenge you to put yourself in his shoes. Sorry to be harsh but I’m calling it like I see it tonight. I do think you’re a good member here.
He has absolutely zero to gain by trying to explain himself pre trial. Now if he’s convicted, different story. The onus is on the crown at this point, not Phil.
Furthermore I would imagine a waterfowl guide couldn’t care less about what western Canadian hunters thought of him. I’m guessin he takes very few residents out anyways. Why risk pigeonholing himself just to satisfy the bloodthirsty masses?????????
|
Its not the Guys from Alberta I would be concerned about. I disagree. He doesn't need to explain himself but getting his innocence out there is SOOOOOOOO important. It's PR 101. But obviously thats up to him. I wish him well.