|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
I read the initial reports, lacking details, other than a dastardly armed assault by a special needs educator on a feeble man.
Last edited:
In case folks here aren't already aware of "Runkle of the Bailey"and his Youtube channel.
What more do you need to know? The man was assaulted, with a weapon, the lady admits to said assault... sounds cut and dry to me.
There was an assault, he got wet. No one is disputing that.
It was an assault with a weapon: the water pistol. No one is disputing that.
And if the man says the lady assaulted him intentionally: that's criminal assault with a weapon... textbook example.
Where the case falls apart is on motive or intent. It's going to be an uphill battle for the prosecutor to establish, let alone PROVE Mens Rea. I betcha the prosecutor rejects the case.
Please watch the video that I linked.
In short, a water gun isn't a "weapon" for purposes of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Assault requires intent, not accidental perceived harm.
I doubt this will even survive arraignment.
Last edited:
I won't be entirely surprised if the "shooter" hit him intentionally and the whiner recorded it. A video could clarify intent. So far the public only has her version that it was accidental. Runkles analysis of weapon seems reasonable. Another black eye for police that have no idea what the laws are (or even worse if they know them and substitute their own reality).
If it's the ones in the picture that are involved in the charge those would be classified as assault water guns and be prohibited weapons.
I did.
A couple of things I disagree with:
1) His definition of assault does not line up with Canada's courts definition of assault. Firstly: assault is not always criminal. Harming someone by accident IS assault, just not criminal, for an assault to be criminal there must be intent to do harm. If one person does damage to another: That is assault. If a person does damage to another person INTENTIONALLY: That's CRIMINAL ASSAULT. If a person does damage to another person by way of an an asininely stupid act, that was unintentional: That's criminal negligence occasioning bodily harm (or death).
2) The criminal code defines weapon as "instrument used to assault". If someone is assaulted, using an instrument, ANY instrument (read the law, there are no exclusions) used in assault is a weapon. If you do intention harm to another person with a tissue, that tissue is a weapon. IF there was an assault, and there was an instrument used, That's assault with a weapon. The assault makes the instrument a weapon, IF you assault someone with a THING, that THING becomes a weapon, no matter what the THING is
I have been charged with assault with a weapon, and successfully argued both these points in court. The weapon was a letter ( like postage, mail. I didn't beat a guy with a giant "W")... it's all about INTENT
A couple of things I disagree with:
1) His definition of assault does not line up with Canada's courts definition of assault. Firstly: assault is not always criminal. Harming someone by accident IS assault, just not criminal, for an assault to be criminal there must be intent to do harm. If one person does damage to another: That is assault. If a person does damage to another person INTENTIONALLY: That's CRIMINAL ASSAULT. If a person does damage to another person by way of an an asininely stupid act, that was unintentional: That's criminal negligence occasioning bodily harm (or death).
2) The criminal code defines weapon as "instrument used to assault". If someone is assaulted, using an instrument, ANY instrument (read the law, there are no exclusions) used in assault is a weapon. If you do intention harm to another person with a tissue, that tissue is a weapon. IF there was an assault, and there was an instrument used, That's assault with a weapon. The assault makes the instrument a weapon, IF you assault someone with a THING, that THING becomes a weapon, no matter what the THING is
I have been charged with assault with a weapon, and successfully argued both these points in court. The weapon was a letter ( like postage, mail. I didn't beat a guy with a giant "W")... it's all about INTENT
You're conveniently ignoring intent. If you're weeding along your 6' privacy fence, your neighbour turns on the sprinkler on their side of it, and you get wet, is that assault?
Have you been talking to Trudeau? Let's not give him any ideas here....
TACTICAL ASSAULT WATER CARBINES... sound scary enough?
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 intentionally
"Assault style."
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 nothing. The fact that they banned the Ar but still allow the SKS says they haven't a clue, OR the whole thing is theater.Did I REALLY need to tack a /s on the end of that one?
Banning the AR makes as much sense as banning tactical assault water pistols
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... BUT NO: this lady (that by news accounts has never said a word to him) meant to assault him.
The bee lady wants to accuse a guy of stabbing her with a syringe... when, as proven by video, he never got withing striking distance of her.
I could not imagine going through life like that, living under the cloud thinking that people you don't know are out to do you, SPECIFICALLY, harm.
We all know people like that, maybe not to this extent... but it's sad, VERY VERY sad
Maybe it's a self persecution complex, maybe they have such self loathing they think they deserve persecution
The guy got sprayed with water, seemingly un-intentionally by all accounts but his... BUT NO: this lady (that by news accounts has never said a word to him) meant to assault him.
The bee lady wants to accuse a guy of stabbing her with a syringe... when, as proven by video, he never got withing striking distance of her.
I could not imagine going through life like that, living under the cloud thinking that people you don't know are out to do you, SPECIFICALLY, harm.
We all know people like that, maybe not to this extent... but it's sad, VERY VERY sad
Maybe it's a self persecution complex, maybe they have such self loathing they think they deserve persecution
Runkle provided the definition of a weapon. We're talking about a charge under the Criminal Code of Canada. If it's not "criminal assault" then it's not assault.
Copied straight from the CC...
weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
In this case.. the "thing" is a water gun.
weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
- (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
- (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
In this case.. the "thing" is a water gun.
Last edited:
Someone would have a hard time making a water gun fit that definition unless the other person was told it was full of something other than water or was, as Runkle joked, the Wicked Witch of the West. Try to intimidate a credible person with a water pistol and they're likely to feed it to you.
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).
... and THAT would be assault with a weapon
Are you getting it yet?
|
|
|
|
|