[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

So, let Gordon Brown file a criminal complaint. You want to moan about the "assault" committed, but the "victim" obviously doesn't see it that way. Rightly so, because he'd be laughed out of the house. He seems content to let the house decide what Trudeau's punishment should be.

I agree.

The House of Commons is full of pussies and would function better if these clowns got down and physical when discussing bills, holding filibusters, reading motions and just fucking the dog which, I'm pretty sure is what they do 99% of the time.


Hell. Instead of a Speaker they could hire Michael Buffer and start each session with.



And as a bonus people might actually start to watch CPAC. It'd be a win win for everyone.

[andyt]

$1:

Opposition drops inquiry to Justin Trudeau's 'elbowgate' incident

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau ... -1.3609147

So not only has the "victim" not lodged a complaint, but the opposition has given up on going after JT politically. So foam on, CKA righties, because you seem to be the only ones who give a shit anymore.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The only reason we're talking about charges is because the right-wingers here are saying Justin clearly committed assault and the only reason that he's not rotting in a cell right now is because the other guy was the bigger man and didn't "press charges".

The two men saying the incident was an technically an assault were two lawyers via a CBC article.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

While there may be grounds for someone to say "oh, he took my hand without my consent, that's assault!" First, it doesn't become assault unless and until the 'victim' makes that claim and the authorities agree. Since we don't have anyone making that claim, we don't have an assault.

An assault is still an assault whether there are charges or not.

Look at that recent fight in a Costco parking lot in Mississauga.


No charges laid.

No assault took place in that video? Punches, people thrown to the ground, people bleeding....but no assault because there were no charges.

If you touch, grab or hit anyone without consent, it's assault. It may not be worthy of charges, but it doesn't change the definition of the act.

[2Cdo]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If you touch, grab or hit anyone without consent, it's assault. It may not be worthy of charges, but it doesn't change the definition of the act.

That's what the apologists don't understand. Especially a certain poster who pretends he's an expert on a number of subjects.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If you touch, grab or hit anyone without consent, it's assault. It may not be worthy of charges, but it doesn't change the definition of the act.

We've been over this enough times by now. The act is only one element of a crime. There must also be criminal intent for there to be a crime. So, no, if you touch grab or hit someone without consent it's only assault if there is criminal intent.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If you touch, grab or hit anyone without consent, it's assault. It may not be worthy of charges, but it doesn't change the definition of the act.

We've been over this enough times by now. The act is only one element of a crime. There must also be criminal intent for there to be a crime. So, no, if you touch grab or hit someone without consent it's only assault if there is criminal intent.

And you can say that however many times you want. I don't give a flying fuck what you think.

You're wrong and I don't care for your opinion on the matter.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And you can say that however many times you want. I don't give a flying fuck what you think.

You're wrong and I don't care for your opinion on the matter.

It's not what I think, it's the way the legal system is set up in this country. So you're wrong. I've proven you're wrong and, being the moron you are, you continue to argue that you're not wrong in the face of clear evidence that you are.

$1:

The Elements of a Crime
It is a general principle of criminal law that both the physical act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea) must be present at the same time for a crime to have occurred. Its importance is illustrated by this example. Joe picks up his shoes from the locker room at his golf club and takes them home. When he returns home he realizes that they are not his shoes but those of another club member but decides to keep them because they fit and are much better than his own. The criminal law relies on the concept that the act of depriving the owner of the shoes continues until the point at which Joe formed the guilty mind (mens rea) to take the shoes. That is the point at which the offence occurs – when there is both a guilty act and a guilty mind.

Actus reus
The physical act of committing an offence (actus reus) is more than an act, it can be an omission to act or a "state of being." For example if one is in possession of an illegal narcotic, one is not acting or failing to act but merely in possession. This is a state of being. Omissions to act can also be crimes (a failure to act when required to do so by law).

If a parent fails to provide the basic necessities for children’s survival the failure to provide is an omission and a crime. The majority of crimes are acts or kinds of misconduct. Proof of the physical element requires more than simply determining an act, omission or state of being exists. It is necessary to consider the four C’s-conduct, consequences, circumstances and causation. The conduct must be as described earlier an act, omission to act or a state of being as outlined in a specific section of the criminal charge. Of particular importance to the concept of conduct is that it be voluntary. The law will not hold someone criminally responsible for an involuntary act. Consequences refer to the outcome of a specific act. For a homicide the consequence would be the death of a human being.

The circumstances aspect of the actus reus refers to the relevant circumstances under which an act must occur to be criminal. In the case of the crime of trespassing at night the relevant circumstances would be that the act occurred at night, on someone’s property other than your own and that you entered the property without consent or lawful excuse.

The final element is causation, meaning that the conduct of the accused person must be shown to have caused the consequence (the criminal act) to occur. If Sally is charged with murdering Bill then it must be proven that Sally’s conduct caused the death of Bill.

Mens rea
The physical act represents one element in the commission of a criminal act while the guilty mind represents the second key element. The guilty mind refers to the intention, knowledge or recklessness of the accused. Essentially the law states that we must mean to cause a wrongful consequence.

Intention is commonly used in the Criminal Code to establish a type of guilty mind. Words like "willfully," "means to" or "intentionally" are used to describe a state of mind. There are two basic types of intention-specific and general. Specific intent offences frequently use the phrase ‘with intent’ or ‘for the purpose of’ to demonstrate a specific purpose behind the crime. General intent crimes are those that do not require a further purpose or intention and are often crimes committed in moments of uncontrolled passion or aggression.

The knowledge form of a guilty mind means that the accused must have knowledge of the specific circumstances of the crime. The phrases "knowingly" or "knowing" are commonly used here to indicate a specific type of knowledge. For example, to knowingly lie to a judge or jury is called perjury and is a criminal offence but to give false evidence unknowingly is not a criminal offence.

One must commit an unlawful act AND one must commit that act with criminal intent. There is no assault if there is no criminal intent. Period.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's not what I think, it's the way the legal system is set up in this country. So you're wrong. I've proven you're wrong and, being the moron you are, you continue to argue that you're not wrong in the face of clear evidence that you are.

The legal system has nothing to do with the literal definition of assault.

[Lemmy]

You're an idiot.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're an idiot.

Yet another one of your opinions I could care less about.

[Lemmy]

Also not an opinion.

[BeaverFever]

Hooray, now 5 more pages about the definition of the word "opinion"!

[raydan]

I say that Lemmy and OTI are assaulting each other... but that's just my opinion.

[Lemmy]

A consensual fight is not assault, which is why no one was charged in that WalMart video.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

A consensual fight is not assault, which is why no one was charged in that WalMart video.

Making up the law as we go along.