Swarming

gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,620
7,093
113
Washington DC
gerryh said:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-224-x/2008000/dd-eng.htm
Every person who commits an assault is guilty of either: an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or. an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Summary conviction carrys a prison term of a maximum of 2 years less a day.
Click to expand...
Thank you. We have different terminology (and somewhat different time limits) down hereabouts.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
You never studied any law history in law school? Odd.

An example of what makes it an aggravated assault.

R. v. McQuaid,[23] while it was not required to base culpability on subsection 21(1), the trial judge explicitly stated that he would have done so if necessary, writing,
While I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of these 6 accused on all counts based on the testimony of their accomplice, Danny Clayton, were it necessary, I would also be prepared to say that each of the accused and Danny Clayton were parties to the aggravated assault of Darren Watts as charged on the Indictment, within the meaning of s. 21(1). I am satisfied the men in the circle were all there for the same reasons: to kick or beat Darren Watts; or help in administering the beating; or encourage it; or stand -- as observed by others -- shoulder to shoulder so as to form a circle thereby ensnaring Darren Watts and preventing him from getting away or stopping others from coming to his rescue.
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Considering the police have not said what these 5 guys are getting charged with or who the victim us, the majority of the comments are speculation out of ignorance, with that ignorance bordering on racism.

Some of the comments even show a definite lack of knowledge in Canadian law.
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
petros said:
You never studied any law history in law school? Odd.
An example of what makes it an aggravated assault.
R. v. McQuaid,[23] while it was not required to base culpability on subsection 21(1), the trial judge explicitly stated that he would have done so if necessary, writing,
While I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of these 6 accused on all counts based on the testimony of their accomplice, Danny Clayton, were it necessary, I would also be prepared to say that each of the accused and Danny Clayton were parties to the aggravated assault of Darren Watts as charged on the Indictment, within the meaning of s. 21(1). I am satisfied the men in the circle were all there for the same reasons: to kick or beat Darren Watts; or help in administering the beating; or encourage it; or stand -- as observed by others -- shoulder to shoulder so as to form a circle thereby ensnaring Darren Watts and preventing him from getting away or stopping others from coming to his rescue.
Click to expand...


What's your point, it has not been made public what charges have been laid.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
He asked. I answered. Got a problem with that?

Cops go worst case scenario on charges. It's up to the Crown whether it's 267 or 268 and if it goes to Queen's Bench.
 
Last edited:
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Girth said:
Does anyone else find it incredible, that a self-proclaimed American Lawyer, who happens to know an astounding amount on Canadian history and politics, cannot distinguish between a summary and indictable offense in said country, considering this was one of the first things I was taught in my Grade 10 High School law class?
Click to expand...

Nope, he's an American lawyer. He would have no reason to study Canadian law.
 
DaSleeper

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
I thought that that U S law was also based on the British system of law, although some of the terms would be different.
 
Last edited:
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
gerryh said:
Except it didnt answer what he asked. I'm sure, though, that citing case law made YOU feel intelligent.
Click to expand...
He asked what made it aggravate assault over a minor assault. That is the answer shithead.

Anything else you need help in grasping?
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
petros said:
He asked what made it aggravate assault over a minor assault. That is the answer shithead.
Anything else you need help in grasping?
Click to expand...

And again, the case law you cited did not address that question.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
No dumbfu-ck, if you'd have asked you could have saved yourself from wearing shit on your face.

What happened in that case was an upgrade from from a charge of Sect 267 Assault Causing Bodily Harm to Sect 268 of Aggrevated Assault.
 
Last edited:
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
petros said:
No dumbfu-ck, if you'd have asked you could have saved yourself from wearing shit on your face.
What happened in that case was an upgrade from from a charge of Sect 267 Assault Causing Bodily Harm to Sect 268 of Aggrevated Assault.
Click to expand...

No mention of that in what you posted. Maybe you should try posting links to support your argument.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
Did I have to when the question was "why aggravated assault and not straight up assault". The answer to that is what is highlighted in bold.

Sing happy birthday, I want to be sure your not having a stroke.
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
petros said:
Did I have to when the question was "why aggravated assault and not straight up assault". The answer to that is what is highlighted in bold.
Sing happy birthday, I want to be sure your not having a stroke.
Click to expand...


No it's not. Reread the decision you quoted. Had nothing to do with common or aggravated assault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom