Search results

And the evidence threshold is VERY different in a civil case as compared to a criminal case. You're apple and orangeing

The aggrieved guy's attitude is an assault to my sense of civility No criminality, no bruises, no physical attack Am I using the word ASSAULT improperly? Welcome to the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of the english language

Common usage of the word assault INFERS criminality, the literal meaning does not

Maybe not for you... try it in court ... and try saying "ACCIDENT" to a lawyer and see what their response is. Lawyers LOVE accidents. There is NO such thing as an accident, there is a cause for each and every action. EVERY ACTION. Accident is a polite way of saying "I/You screwed up" and...

How about this: There is a word in the english language that means doing harm to another, and that word is ASSAULT. When you assault someone/something with criminal intent, that's CRIMINAL ASSAULT Criminal assault is not the same as assault. Criminal assault has intent, non criminal assault...

I doubt you're going to see one here... I see no way the prosecution is going to prove intent, and I betcha this gets thrown out with "no prospect of conviction" (isn't that how they phrase it?) before it gets to court. There was a case in Vancouver when someone was convicted of a assault with...

If I bump into you and knock you down: I have assaulted you. Not crime. Courts have ZERO interest If I knock you down INTENTIONALLY: that's a crime Nothing about two classes, just pointing out there is a difference between assault and criminal assault The word ASSAULT means doing harm to...

NO There WAS an assault. That is not in dispute. He got wet. That IS assault. And by CCC, IF an assault is done with an instrument (NO EXCLUSIONS, NOT CREDIBLE THREAT, IF THERE WAS AN INSTRUMENT, THAT INSTRUMENT IS A WEAPON) There is no way around it. The assault happened, that makes the threat...

Because it was NOT mischief, there was harm done (the guy got wet), so it IS assault, not mischief, AND the assault involve a weapon (by CCC definition) Mischief is when the damage is inconsequential, and in THIS case the aggrieved party does not see the damage as inconsequential. His person WAS...

Common criminal law is built on INTENT. The differential is INTENT. You know that. If not Sections 265,266,267 are a good start when dealing with assault. For a criminal prosecution there has to be Mens Rea (which roughly translates to "guilty mind"), if there is Mens Rea in an assault, it's...

Turn the water pistol case around, and decide to NOT charge the lady... and we'd be here discussing why the police DID NOT charge? Everybody is down on the cops here.... put yourself in their shoes for a second here. You're damned if you do (charge) and you're damned if you don't. They...

You're still not getting it. IF there was an assault, and there was a an instrument involved in the assault, it is assault with a weapon. That is THE way the law is written, no discussion, no exeptions Simple assault in this case is mis-charging, it does not describe what happened.

An assault is an assault. END OF STORY. If an assault is intentional, meaning there is motive, intent and Mens Rea, THEN it is criminal assault. Bumping into someone on the subway causing harm to their person IS assault, doing on purpose is criminal assault. Slapping your child's hand to stop...

... just wait till we get a case of a martial arts guy beating someone with their fists... and the crown tries to make it assault with a weapon. It's doable

... and THAT would be assault with a weapon Are you getting it yet?

Runkle TRIED to re-define weapon. The Canadian Criminal code does not agree with his definition. Read the law... this is not the first time this issue has come up. Canadian Criminal Code sections 265, 266, 267 are what you need (IIRC).

What really sticks with me in these two cases (the water gun and the bee sting) is that there are people out there that think, or have the sense, that everyone and everything in this world is out to GET them. The guy got sprayed with water, seemingly un-intentionally by all accounts but his...

Not at all... but JT should have put a /s on the end of his pronouncement that legal hunting carbines are ASSAULT RIFLES. The liberals made up a classification of rifle just to scare the populace to get them to sign up to his stupid new gun laws, that have costed us billions and has done...

No I'm not. Reading between the lines here; the aggrieved neighbour is telling the police the lady soaked him intentionally, which speaks to intent If the neighbour WAS NOT saying she did it intentionally, there was no CRIMINAL assault and no charge. The neighbour HAS to be saying she did it...

Have you been talking to Trudeau? Let's not give him any ideas here.... TACTICAL ASSAULT WATER CARBINES... sound scary enough?