Drunk driver will be sentenced next month
- Thread starter spaminator
- Start date
So this lad suffered a broken skull after his head was already f**Ked up! The future doesn't bode well, but most of it should be in jail!
A real Canadian lawyer would. I've said a couple of times I'm not a Canadian lawyer.
You're wrong, by the way. Near as I can tell from some fairly cursory research, some applications of 229(c) have indeed been struck down, but the statute remains in force.
See, that's the way it works. If you go back to my original post, you will also see that I didn't say that this clown could be imprisoned under 229(c). I said that with some good lawyering, one could make an argument that 229(c) should apply. That's the way it works. The legislature passes the law, then the courts interpret it. In that interpretation, lawyers make arguments. If the prosecution decided to charge the guy under 229(c), it would argue that he took an action with criminal intent, and that a death resulted, which is what is called "felony murder" in common-law countries. The prosecution would cite various cases, and argue that this case is closer to prior cases where 229(c) was applied. The defence would argue that application of 229(c) in this case would violate the Charter, citing cases to support its argument, and claiming that this case is close enough to those that 229(c) should not apply.
That's what real lawyers do.
Uh huh. Bullsh-t. The only thing you and a lawyer have in common.
Lawyering by the Crown is why it was struck down and violates the Charter.
Lawyering by the Crown is why it was struck down and violates the Charter.
Yep. It's not a one-way process. A little hard for the lay mind to understand. Specially when the lay mind in question ain't all that sharp to begin with.
No matter how often you repeat your claim, you still got nothing. One would think a "scientist" would realise that.
You have bank accounts in Canada that specify professions? Cool. My bank doesn't say I'm a lawyer, the State of Maryland does. I guess the Maryland Bar didn't ask you. Too bad.
What's that, the sixth or seventh repetition? You're getting really dull. Sober up.
Where did you come by this erroneous belief that repeating something makes it true? The Canadian Science Skool?
And using those scientific analytical techniques like repetition and bad language to prove your point.
It's almost like your IQ is dropping right before our eyes. And it ain't like it was all that high to begin with.
Nobody shot down anybody. I shot down your argument.
Inability to distinguish between the argument and the proponent is one of many signs of an ill-educated mind.
". . .notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being."
Criminal Code of Canada Section 229(c)
And 229(c) doesn't exist in reality because it violates the Charter. When it was suggested you fill you boots and back your BS you said you did but never ran across the SCoC R. v Martineau?
At what point did the guy hop behind the wheel with the intent of crossing the centerline to kill?
What you have in bold is the reason why it was struck down. Thanks.
At what point did the guy hop behind the wheel with the intent of crossing the centerline to kill?
What you have in bold is the reason why it was struck down. Thanks.
Last edited: