Video supports George Brent Mills’ position that he was defending himself—not attacking Deputy Reeve Kevin Falconer
(Wingham, North Huron) — For months, George Mills carried the stigma of being publicly arrested and charged over the February 17, 2026 altercation involving North Huron Deputy Reeve Kevin Falconer.
NOTE: Those seeking comments/interviews with Mr. Mills can contact [email protected] with your request.
Now the charge against Mills has been withdrawn because there was reportedly no reasonable prospect of conviction. The evidence supported what Mills maintained from the beginning:
George Brent Mills was defending himself.
The collapse of the prosecution sharply challenges the original portrayal of Falconer as the victim and Mills as the aggressor. Video of the encounter, witness accounts and Mills’ immediate reaction all support a very different conclusion—that Falconer initiated the unwanted physical contact and Mills responded in self-defence.
“You grabbed me by the nuts!”
Those words, shouted by Mills during the encounter, were not invented months later as part of a legal defence. They were captured on video at the scene:
“You grabbed me by the nuts, you son of a bitch!”
A frame-by-frame review of the recording appears to show Falconer changing direction before making physical contact with Mills. Mills and witnesses allege that Falconer grabbed Mills in the groin area.
Mills reacted. Falconer was injured. But the fact that someone is injured does not necessarily make that person the victim or prove that another person committed a crime.
The central issue is who initiated the physical confrontation—and whether Mills reasonably believed force was being used against him.
The Crown’s withdrawal of the charge, reportedly because the evidence supported self-defence and offered no reasonable prospect of conviction, is a powerful answer to that question.
Right to defend oneself
The right to defend oneself is among the oldest principles recognized by Canadian law.
Section 34 of the Criminal Code protects a person who reasonably believes that force is being used or threatened against them, acts to protect themselves or another person, and responds reasonably in the circumstances.
Mills did not have to stand motionless and permit someone to grab him. If he reasonably believed he was being assaulted, he was legally entitled to defend himself with reasonable force.
That is not retaliation. It is self-defence.
Yet Mills—the person recorded immediately accusing Falconer of grabbing him—was the one arrested, handcuffed and publicly charged.
Falconer has not been charged in connection with the February 17 contact. That continuing difference in treatment has fuelled public calls for police to explain why Mills was prosecuted while the allegation against Falconer apparently produced no corresponding charge.
No court has found Falconer guilty of an offence, and the allegation against him remains unproven. Nevertheless, the video and witness evidence warrant a complete, impartial investigation.
Evidence collection took approximately two months
Questions also surround the police investigation.
According to those involved, the OPP took approximately two months to gather important witness statements and video evidence. Mills was arrested despite witnesses maintaining that he was the victim and despite video that appears to support his claim of self-defence.
The public deserves to know:
- When did investigators first obtain and review the complete video?
- Were all witnesses interviewed before Mills was arrested?
- Was Mills’ immediate allegation against Falconer investigated with equal seriousness?
- Why was Mills charged while Falconer was not?
- Who authorized the arrest, and what evidence was relied upon?
These are not unreasonable questions. They go directly to the fairness and impartiality of the investigation.
Seriously injured in OPP custody
Mills’ treatment became even more disturbing after his arrest.
He was taken to the Huron County OPP detachment in Clinton, where he says his ribs were broken during an encounter with officers.
The Special Investigations Unit confirmed that a 69-year-old man suffered a serious injury following an altercation with officers while being escorted to a cell. Public reporting linked the timing and circumstances of that investigation to Mills’ arrest, although authorities initially stopped short of officially identifying him. Midwestern Newspapers
The sequence is shocking: Mills says he was assaulted, defended himself, was arrested as the supposed aggressor and then suffered serious injuries while in police custody.
A withdrawn charge cannot undo that experience.
Meetings moved online after the confrontation
The February 17 meeting was itself significant. Area rights advocates had successfully pushed North Huron to end its prohibition against members of the public recording council meetings.
North Huron subsequently moved council meetings online following the altercation and cited safety concerns. When the municipality prepared to restore in-person meetings, council approved additional private security and physical crowd-control measures. CKNX News Today
Some residents questioned whether North Huron’s response unfairly portrayed members of the public and press as security threats while avoiding scrutiny of Falconer’s alleged conduct.
There is no publicly established evidence that meetings were moved online specifically to protect anyone from Falconer. That suspicion remains public speculation—not a proven fact. But North Huron should explain why its public response focused on the alleged danger posed by Mills and other attendees without squarely addressing what the video appears to show.
Charges withdrawn in Goderich
On July 20, 2026, the assault charge against Mills was withdrawn in Goderich after the Crown reportedly determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
That is not merely a technical development.
Mills will not face trial. He was not convicted. He remains legally innocent, and the criminal prosecution against him is over.
A withdrawn charge is not technically the same as a judicial acquittal following trial. Nevertheless, when a charge is withdrawn because self-defence evidence leaves no reasonable prospect of conviction, the result vindicates the central position Mills maintained from the beginning: he was defending himself.
Damage to a Free Press member’s reputation
Mills is a longtime member of the local Free Press and a founding member of Wingham Cop Watch. For more than a decade, he has helped document police conduct and expose alleged wrongdoing by public institutions.
He also participated in the movement that preceded the disbandment of the former Wingham Police Service—a change supporters credit with saving local taxpayers millions of dollars.
That history makes the treatment of Mills especially concerning. A person known for recording and criticizing police and government was publicly arrested, charged and injured in police custody—only for the prosecution to end after evidence of self-defence was considered.
Police publicly announced the charge. News organizations repeated it. North Huron reshaped its meetings and security narrative around the incident.
The withdrawal must receive equal prominence.
OPP cut off access to police media releases
At approximately the same time, the OPP also shut off the Free Press’ access to its media-release system—an essential source of information for a community.
Restoring George Mills’ name
For months, Mills was labelled as the man who assaulted a municipal official. That description is now incomplete, unfair and profoundly misleading.
The available evidence supports a different account:
Mills alleged that Falconer initiated the contact. Mills reacted in self-defence. Mills was arrested. Mills was seriously injured in police custody. The charge against Mills was ultimately withdrawn because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Falconer has not been convicted or found civilly liable for assaulting Mills, and the allegation must continue to be reported as an allegation unless proven in court. But Mills should no longer be portrayed as a convicted attacker—or even as someone still facing an unresolved criminal accusation.
Supporters call him “Saint George,” the protector of Wingham’s Square Mile and its democracy. Songs have been written about him, and he has even been immortalized as an official Piggymon™.
Behind those honours is a serious demand for accountability.
George Mills deserves more than the quiet withdrawal of a charge. He deserves the restoration of his reputation—and answers about why the person claiming self-defence was arrested while the alleged initial aggressor was not.
The charge is gone. George Mills stands legally innocent. Now the institutions that publicly treated him as the aggressor must explain what they did to the real victim.
North Huron Council Contact Info:
Paul Heffer
280 Manor Road
(519) 357-3594
[email protected]
Mitch Wright
63 Bristol Terrace
(519) 357-9497
[email protected]
Lonnie Whitfield
94 John St. West
(226) 222-2585
[email protected]
Anita van Hittersum
84012 Hoover Line
(519) 523-4492
[email protected]
Chris Palmer
39331 Belfast Road
(519) 357-3385
[email protected]
Kevin Fascist Falconer
303 King Street
(519) 955-0301
[email protected]
Ric McBurney
202 Thuell St, Blyth
(519) 441-7415
[email protected]