Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Read the entire section, and get back to me. You left out subsection (a) and (b), of which there are two words that are very important.

a and b set out the punishments if you're fund guilty.  

It clearly says an attempt at theft is illegal.  Come on ?Impact...   you also need to quit while you're behind.

If you don't understand the Criminal Code, then maybe this will help:

Quote

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Attempts

Attempts
24. (1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence. 
Question of law
(2) The question whether an act or omission by a person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of law. 

------------------------------------------------

An accused who goes through the glove box of a car looking for keys to the car that he wishes to steal has attempted to commit theft.[2]

 

Edited by The_Squid
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 336
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It seems unusual that out of all those potential jurors, the defense was able to find 12 racists and the prosecution agreed to all of them.

Armed thugs enter property to steal and start an altercation...   one gets shot.   What a shocker!!   The kid didn’t deserve to die, and the farmer didn’t deserve to be charged with murder.  Sucks

Trudeau is trying to obstruct the justice system for political gain.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

No, they did not. Go back and read the thread, you obviously lost your glasses.

Your argumentation style leaves little to be desired. You were shown the parts in the Criminal Code where I CLEARLY showed this and and you still refute it. Of course, you don't refute it with logic, common sense or even any resemblance of an argument, rather you simply state...No they did not.  I think its time for you to step up your game or possibly find a new method of amusing yourself. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

You heard? What does that mean. I have heard a lot of things about this trial, and most of them are pure crap.

Do you need me to provide a definition of 'heard'? You know...like when someone tells you something! I clearly did not say I read as I would have cited it and backed it up (unlike anything you do). When asking some peers of why these individuals have not been charged with crimes they have already admitted to, I was told it was most likely that they were given immunity in exchange for testimony.

Again, this is only one idea to the question I have asked a number of times on this thread...a question that you couldn't answer either which is "why have these guys not been charged"? So far the only answer that makes sense is the one that I HEARD. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gingerteeth said:

Breaking a vehicle window is destruction of property not theft. 

One person jumping on the ATV isn't theft. 

The criminal code of Canada disagrees with you.

 
Quote

 

Theft
  • 322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

    • (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

    • (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

    • (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

    • (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

  • Time when theft completed

    (2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.

  •  


 

  • As per number 2 above, the minute they began to cause it to move (ie breaking the window or jumping on the ATV and starting it) that would be enough to prove intent. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gingerteeth said:

This position is strengthened by the fact none of the youth are being charged with theft. These aren't professional theives these are drunk youth being stupid.

The only reasonable reason they haven't been charged is because they were given immunity from the Crown in exchange for their testimony pertaining to Stanley. Testimony that proved very helpful in showing that Stanley was not guilty as they deemed Stanley had reasonable conducted himself when a bunch of hooligans, attempting to steal came on to his property. Without that testimony they might not have got that side of the story and we may still be left to believe that Boushie and his clan were just innocent bystanders looking for help (as it was first thought)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@?Impact @Gingerteeth

Charter 13 for our Charter of Rights and Freedmom leads to the answer:

Quote

 

Self-crimination

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

 

 

The Crown could still prosecute them but would not be able to use any of the testimony from this proceeding which makes it pointless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

The only reasonable reason they haven't been charged is because they were given immunity from the Crown in exchange for their testimony pertaining to Stanley. Testimony that proved very helpful in showing that Stanley was not guilty as they deemed Stanley had reasonable conducted himself when a bunch of hooligans, attempting to steal came on to his property. Without that testimony they might not have got that side of the story and we may still be left to believe that Boushie and his clan were just innocent bystanders looking for help (as it was first thought)

 

31 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

The criminal code of Canada disagrees with you.

 
  • As per number 2 above, the minute they began to cause it to move (ie breaking the window or jumping on the ATV and starting it) that would be enough to prove intent. 

You will have to prove the ATV moved. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:
  • As per number 2 above, the minute they began to cause it to move (ie breaking the window or jumping on the ATV and starting it) that would be enough to prove intent. 

Also per #2, the moment they started the vehicle:

Quote

(2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 4:45 PM, ?Impact said:

Yet Stanley was judged by only whites, natives need not apply. That started with a 50/50 jury pool, and ended up white only.

Your self righteous rant later says only a closed minded bigot would do that, yet you support the practice.

Thank you for the perfect example of ignoring reality.

You are a racist which is clear from all your comments. You feel its perfectly acceptable to be a racist as long as it suits your prejudices. You also ignore how the law works living in some fantasy racist world that a jury must be of the same appearance as the accused otherwise you can automatically assume this jury is untrustworthy. Nothing you have said makes any sense. You are a classic example of someone who feels because you think you are a leftist, this automatically means you can be a racist and a fascist because if it comes from your mouth you get to define which race or ethnic group it is you spew hatred about. You don't  represent anyone but your own hatred.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gingerteeth said:

 

You will have to prove the ATV moved. 

Explain why. You make assumptions now provide the case law that says the above. Here's a hint there is none. Here's another hint, the words "begins to cause it to become movable means turning on the engine of any motorized vehicle. According to you someone can get in the car, turn on the engine but is not driving the car as long as it has not moved. Bullshit. In law just sitting behind the driver's eat with keys is sufficient to be considered driving it. Yoiu don't even have to start the engine. Yah you knew that. G on then, o look up the case law on drunk drivers before you wax poetic on the criminal code.

In this case if you are pretending he did not start the ATV and was not trying to steal it, knock yourself it. The facts contradict your fantasy and your attempt to deny what the person was doing when he got shot. You want to white wash what he was doing to turn the person into a martyr. Spare me. You are nothing more than another after the fact couch potato legal genius with a political agenda. The law is not based on your fantasies or political biases.

When you have any proof anyone in the jury did not consider the facts properly get back to me.

Edited by Rue
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Zeitgeist
      https://www.mississauga.com/news-story/10017802-online-petition-calls-for-renaming-of-winston-churchill-boulevard-in-mississauga/
       
      So, the first leader to declare war on Hitler and Nazism is under fire with calls to change the name of Sir Winston Churchill Blvd. Thoughts?
    • By Zeitgeist
      With all of the accusations of systemic racism, including the idea of unconscious bias, some companies are implementing affirmative action hiring policies that will aim to hire more minorities.  The CBC, for example, claims it will make sure at least 50% of its workforce are minorities.  Do you agree with affirmative action policies?
    • By Hussain
      I had the privilege of interviewing MP Mark Holland on issues facing Canada from Clean drinking water in Indengoues reserves, Coronavirus outbreak, Affordable housing, and Wexit Canada.
      You can watch it on youtube Monday 2:15 p.m EST 
      BUT What do you think are the top 5 issues in Canada?
      Follow me on IG @t.w.t_podcast_
       
    • By Hussain
      Can you ever imagine a country like Canada not having clean drinking water? In the 1970s the Canadain government promised to bring clean drinking water to all of Canada. Now in 2020 100% of cities of clean drinking water and 99% of rural areas have clean drinking water. the 1% which is missing is the Indigenous reserves. People living on the reserves don't have access to clean drinking water. They are poorly funded. Now the question of what would the Canadian government do if Toronto had no cleaning drinking water?
      BTW if you guys want to know more about me and my youtube channel check it out. I interview high profile politicians including Former PMs and MPs and Senators. 
       
    • By Zeitgeist
      Consider our turbulent times: predictions of climate catastrophe, the spread of Coronavirus, challenges to existing political and economic systems through movements such as Extinction Rebellion.  The old liberal-democratic political oppositions, e.g. liberal vs. conservative, are struggling to survive as a moderate middle ground between a more radical emerging opposition.
      Thoughts?  Anything in the chart below that you think doesn't apply, should be moved, supplemented?  I would add "Containment" as a crisis response to pandemics.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...