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

[bitzz]

I'd just like to see some case law regarding water guns.

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.

 

[backmarkerducati]

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.

 

[bitzz]

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.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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.

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."

 

[bitzz]

Nope, doesn't pass muster.

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

 

[backmarkerducati]

Tort Law is why lawyers love accidents.
***
OK, I think I figured it out. It is assault because the curmudgeon identifies as a cat. Pronouns are Purr/Purrself. /s

 

[bitzz]

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

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

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]

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

Depending upon which dictionary you use, it outright states it.

 

[raginduck]

The implication, under the law and case law, is that the threat is credible.

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.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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.

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.

 

[bitzz]

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

 

[bitzz]

If I remember it was a civil suit

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

 

[bitzz]

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....

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

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.

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

Yes, you are using it improperly.

 

[bitzz]

Yes, you are using it improperly.

How so?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

How so?

Asked and answered.

 

[bitzz]

It's explaining why.

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.

 

[bitzz]

Asked and answered.

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

 

[FullMotoJacket]

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

Watch the video I posted. ALL the other neighbours say that he has weaponized the police against them for the most petty of things and they go out of their way to avoid him. Boy, wolf, you know the parable.