The judge presiding over the Coutts court case said he thinks Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick attended the border blockade prepared for a “shootout.” Olienick and Carbert were acquitted on charges of conspiring to kill a police officer on August 2, but found guilty on mischief and possession of a dangerous weapon charges. Tuesday’s court proceedings were solely about hearing the decisions from the judge rather than hearing arguments from both sides, which took place Monday. Sentencing is expected on Friday. Justice David Labrenz on Tuesday said he believes Olienick showed up to the blockage ready for a shootout with police. He said he accepted Olieneck was a “sheepdog” and was ready to “use his firearms to resist police,” according to independent journalist Jason Lavigne, who attended the court proceedings. The term sheepdog comes from the idea of trying to protect one’s “flock.” .Carbert had earlier told the court he brought rifles to the border protest to show off and hunt coyotes, and that he did not know about the firearms found in his trailer, as many people used the space.Labrenz said he does not accept Carbert did not know about the firearms found in his trailer, alleging he lied under oath, rendering him not credible. “Mr. Carbert demonstrated then, as now, that he is prepared to lie under oath when it suits him to do so,” said Labrenz, per CityNews. “I conclude that Mr. Carbert, like Mr. Olienick, was prepared to engage in a firefight with police.”“This was an exceedingly dangerous situation.”There was no evidence presented in the trial that he knew about the weapons. Carbert’s defence argued as the conspiracy charges were dropped, that negates intent with the weapons, said Lavigne.“It was to support the blockade and to engage in a war with police if it came to that eventuality,” Labrenz said, per CityNews. “The abundance of live ammunition, the medical kit, the ballistic vests are not supportive of showing off firearms or hunting coyotes.“They are supportive of a war with police.”Olienick faces an additional charge of possession of an explosive device charge. The judge said he was “satisfied” the items are “explosives” but acknowledged the court is “unaware of the purpose of the explosives, how old they are and who constructed them,” indicating the judge believed the Crown did not prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, according to Lavigne.
The judge presiding over the Coutts court case said he thinks Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick attended the border blockade prepared for a “shootout.” Olienick and Carbert were acquitted on charges of conspiring to kill a police officer on August 2, but found guilty on mischief and possession of a dangerous weapon charges. Tuesday’s court proceedings were solely about hearing the decisions from the judge rather than hearing arguments from both sides, which took place Monday. Sentencing is expected on Friday. Justice David Labrenz on Tuesday said he believes Olienick showed up to the blockage ready for a shootout with police. He said he accepted Olieneck was a “sheepdog” and was ready to “use his firearms to resist police,” according to independent journalist Jason Lavigne, who attended the court proceedings. The term sheepdog comes from the idea of trying to protect one’s “flock.” .Carbert had earlier told the court he brought rifles to the border protest to show off and hunt coyotes, and that he did not know about the firearms found in his trailer, as many people used the space.Labrenz said he does not accept Carbert did not know about the firearms found in his trailer, alleging he lied under oath, rendering him not credible. “Mr. Carbert demonstrated then, as now, that he is prepared to lie under oath when it suits him to do so,” said Labrenz, per CityNews. “I conclude that Mr. Carbert, like Mr. Olienick, was prepared to engage in a firefight with police.”“This was an exceedingly dangerous situation.”There was no evidence presented in the trial that he knew about the weapons. Carbert’s defence argued as the conspiracy charges were dropped, that negates intent with the weapons, said Lavigne.“It was to support the blockade and to engage in a war with police if it came to that eventuality,” Labrenz said, per CityNews. “The abundance of live ammunition, the medical kit, the ballistic vests are not supportive of showing off firearms or hunting coyotes.“They are supportive of a war with police.”Olienick faces an additional charge of possession of an explosive device charge. The judge said he was “satisfied” the items are “explosives” but acknowledged the court is “unaware of the purpose of the explosives, how old they are and who constructed them,” indicating the judge believed the Crown did not prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, according to Lavigne.
