Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly..... | Page 357 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 20.7%

  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • I like turtles

    Votes: 55 49.5%
  • Total voters
    111
bitzz said:
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 another being, NOTHING in that definition infers criminality
There are no "degrees" of assault, the definition is cut and dry and self explanatory
Click to expand...
If you accidentally bump into me and I'm injured, there has still been no assault. I might have a TORT against you for damages, but it's not a criminal matter. If you "accidentally" bump into me when you're running down a crowded sidewalk with your eyes closed then you may have committed an act of criminal negligence, but it's still not assault.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I'd just like to see some case law regarding water guns.
Click to expand...
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 a weapon... a dildo
... and as I said, I've argued a case much like this one... the weapon was a letter and I was found not guilty, as the crown didn't prove intent to harm.
 
I must say I am convinced! She should get the maximum penalty of 10 years incarceration. The police should get the Ontario Police Medal for Bravery for risking their dryness in the line of duty. I for one am glad all the real crimes have been solved.

More likely, crown drops the charges and a curmudgeon is mocked, even less liked (maybe even hated) in his neighbourhood. Sadly it will still cost her a bunch of money so no justice has been done. Go fund me will help.
 
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 does not.
The criminal code of canada is only interested in criminal assault, ALL references in the criminal code are references to criminal assault, but as we can see, and what you refuse to acknowledge, they are not the same thing
They are two different concepts. If I do damage to your person, I have assaulted you... it may or not BE criminal... but is still an assault. Sorry.
 
bitzz said:
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 does not.
The criminal code of canada is only interested in criminal assault, ALL references in the criminal code are references to criminal assault, but as we can see, and what you refuse to acknowledge, they are not the same thing
They are two different concepts. If I do damage to your person, I have assaulted you... it may or not BE criminal... but is still an assault. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Nope, doesn't pass muster. Even the common language definition of assault, rather than the legal one, implies intent to cause harm or intimidate.

We have a word, in English, for what you want to call a non criminal assault. It's "accident."
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Nope, doesn't pass muster.
Click to expand...
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 Canadian courts agree with me on that one
 
bitzz said:
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 Canadian courts agree with me on that one
Click to expand...
Accidents are not assaults. Bumping into someone as you are both rounding a corner is not an assault. Trying to conflate every accident as some sort of crime is a patently ridiculous position.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The implication, under the law and case law, is that the threat is credible.
Click to expand...

I know I said the "any thing used" was the water gun.. but I'm thinking that alleged weapon in the charge is the water.. not the water gun!?
I don't know dude.. I agree it's ridiculous.. I'm just pointing out the clause they used to press the charge.. I expect it will be settled thru alternative measures of some sort.. peace bond.. etc.. if it's not dropped outright. I'm guessing the guy is too much PIA to let the crown just drop it though.
 
raginduck said:
I know I said the "any thing used" was the water gun.. but I'm thinking that alleged weapon in the charge is the water.. not the water gun!?
I don't know dude.. I agree it's ridiculous.. I'm just pointing out the clause they used to press the charge.. I expect it will be settled thru alternative measures of some sort.. peace bond.. etc.. if it's not dropped outright. I'm guessing the guy is too much PIA to let the crown just drop it though.
Click to expand...
I could only find one case on CanLii that involved a water gun as an element of the act. If I remember it was a civil suit and the person who was attacked was riding a bicycle and crashed as a result of someone spraying him out a car window. The victim received compensation for lost wages and injury, however, they outright denied him damages for getting wet. It was the result that mattered, rather than the means.
 
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
 
OH... and it's being reported the lady with the squirt gun ex husband is a retired OPP officer... so of course he was involved in getting her charged... you know for spite

... the totally asinine stuff that's put forward....
 
bitzz said:
And the evidence threshold is VERY different in a civil case as compared to a criminal case.
You're apple and orangeing
Click to expand...
Which is why I have said that I can't find a case that applies. on CanLii, and specifically stated that this case was civil in nature. That's not "apples and oranges." It's explaining why.
bitzz said:
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
Click to expand...
Yes, you are using it improperly.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
It's explaining why.
Click to expand...
NO IT IS NOT, not even a little.
Just because there has never been a case about a water pistol specifically, means nothing to the argument at hand.
If I invent a thing the world has never seen before and assault you with it, it's assault with a weapon, and it won't be in any caselaw.

How can we explain this anymore? The law is explicit: If there is an assault with an instrument it is assault with a weapon. No ifs ands or buts, no exclusions, no what ifs, no "but was only a ...."
I can see you wanting to argue the assault part, but the weapon part is non negotiable...IF there was an assault... which there was, we just haven't decided if it was criminal or not.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Asked and answered.
Click to expand...
Sorry you think I'm an idiot... but WHERE WAS IT ASKED AND ANSWERED? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.
Are you saying "The aggrieved guy's attitude is an assault to my sense of civility" is invalid?
Well you'd be wrong then. The word assault in the context of legal terms means what you think it does, but there are other uses for that word.

Yes this VERY much semantics, but if you really think about it, that's what courts are all about: semantics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom