Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Don't Carjack in Kansas City.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Felch View Post
    Because none of it would have happened without the attempted carjacking. Don't they have the concept of mens rea in Canada?

    WE do-- she formed no intent
    You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo

    Comment


    • #32
      The question should be about sparky's understanding of canadian law, rather than canadian law itself.
      12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
      Stadtluft Macht Frei
      Killing it is the new killing it
      Ultima Ratio Regum

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Flubber View Post
        WE do-- she formed no intent
        My point about mens rea is that the actions aren't the only basis for a crime. The driver's state of mind is an important element. Without a guilty mind, there isn't a crime.
        John Brown did nothing wrong.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by KrazyHorse View Post
          The question should be about sparky's understanding of canadian law, rather than canadian law itself.
          That's Uncle Sparky to you, boy! The self defence arguement is valid (as an arguement) pertaning to the injuries to the car jacker. While she did not form intent, her action behind the wheel, had they caused injury to a third party, would have been criminal.
          There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

          Comment


          • #35
            No it wouldn't have. In fact, in many jurisdictions, any injuries to an innocent third party caused by a victim in a valid attempt at self-defence are the liability of the person who originally engaged in a criminal act by threatening the victim's life. In order to demonstrate liability of the victim, you would have to prove recklessness, negligence, or intent to injure the third party none of which are apparent in this case.

            I have no respect for you because you're an ignorant, bloated windbag.
            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment


            • #36
              It's the same line of reasoning as felony murder.
              John Brown did nothing wrong.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by KrazyHorse View Post
                No it wouldn't have. In fact, in many jurisdictions, any injuries to an innocent third party caused by a victim in a valid attempt at self-defence are the liability of the person who originally engaged in a criminal act by threatening the victim's life. In order to demonstrate liability of the victim, you would have to prove recklessness, negligence, or intent to injure the third party none of which are apparent in this case.

                I have no respect for you because you're an ignorant, bloated windbag.
                First, I've been relatively succinct. Second, I have played bagpipes, so you're close on that one. Finally, your mother dresses you funny.
                There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

                Comment

                Working...
                X