CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Postess with the Mostest posted:

As long as you're making a phone call at the same time, I believe you just get off.

Careful you might end up with wearing your hot take as an avatar like me

# ? Sep 3, 2018 01:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 01:43

Vintersorg: Mar 3, 2004; President of
the Brendan Fraser
Fan Club

Det_no posted:

Hello, innocent canadians that more than likely have nothing to do with this. I'm afraid I'm very frustrated with your country so I'm going to use you as a punching bag. I hope you can be polite, just like in your carefully manufactured national stereotype, and forgive me.

I hear that as of late you've cried a lot because we, Mexico, are supposedly being converted into "isolationists" because the trade agreement talks are not going well. Well I came here to tell you to go gently caress yourselves because your government has always been two-faced snakes that preach solidarity with Mexico and other Latin countries but never loving pull through when it's time to get your hands dirty.

Your country or at least the clown you have watching over it is a garbage hipster oval office that, were he not prime minister, would be going on African missions to go dig up wells. Not to actually help but to feel good about himself and get some killer instagram shots for his fans. I believe we have been pretty friendly with your country despite your government being our equivalent of a better off, preppy friend that says he has your back but always pussies out, so I don't agree with this narrative in your media. I'm not even going to mention the pretty shady poo poo Canada does too so if you see any fellow canadian eating up this narrative them tell to go poo poo out a hockey puck before we get a generation of poutine-eating Trumptites. Tell them to try being a bro for once instead of saying one thing and doing another, I know it's hard but if your country is going to be so smug the least you could do is try.

Ok I feel better now.

gently caress off.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 01:33

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Det_no posted:

Hello, innocent canadians that more than likely have nothing to do with this. I'm afraid I'm very frustrated with your country so I'm going to use you as a punching bag. I hope you can be polite, just like in your carefully manufactured national stereotype, and forgive me.

I hear that as of late you've cried a lot because we, Mexico, are supposedly being converted into "isolationists" because the trade agreement talks are not going well. Well I came here to tell you to go gently caress yourselves because your government has always been two-faced snakes that preach solidarity with Mexico and other Latin countries but never loving pull through when it's time to get your hands dirty.

Your country or at least the clown you have watching over it is a garbage hipster oval office that, were he not prime minister, would be going on African missions to go dig up wells. Not to actually help but to feel good about himself and get some killer instagram shots for his fans. I believe we have been pretty friendly with your country despite your government being our equivalent of a better off, preppy friend that says he has your back but always pussies out, so I don't agree with this narrative in your media. I'm not even going to mention the pretty shady poo poo Canada does too so if you see any fellow canadian eating up this narrative them tell to go poo poo out a hockey puck before we get a generation of poutine-eating Trumptites. Tell them to try being a bro for once instead of saying one thing and doing another, I know it's hard but if your country is going to be so smug the least you could do is try.

Ok I feel better now.

Yes, because everyone here is responsible for that, can change it, and deserves blame. Go gently caress yourself.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 01:45

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

CLAM DOWN posted:

Yes, because everyone here is responsible for that, can change it, and deserves blame. Go gently caress yourself.

What, don't you vote? Doesn't that change things?

# ? Sep 3, 2018 02:04

Hexigrammus: May 22, 2006; Cheech Wizard stories are clean, wholesome, reflective truths that go great with the marijuana munchies and a blow job.

mik posted:

On one hand, sorry.
On the other hand, gently caress you.

p. much my feelings. I'll definitely be stealing that "garbage hipster oval office" quote for future political discourse.

OTOH I'm not sure I can muster up the energy for a good "gently caress you". Too much time spent reading about climate change today. :suicide:

# ? Sep 3, 2018 02:06

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

The article says the perpetrator consumed a date rape drug before the crime?? It does not elaborate. If he consumed it on purpose himself, that's obviously very different than if he was given it secretly. If someone snuck it into his drink, I think that should be a valid defense and he is probably not guilty. If he just took a date rape drug for fun*, then he is absolutely responsible for the poo poo he does on that drug, whether it's rape or DUI... Which makes me wonder - do we have a charter right to use excessive intoxication as a defense against DUI charges?

*I was going to ask if that's a thing kids do these days, but then I figured that if I have to ask, the answer is surely yes, some people do that.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 02:07

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

xtal posted:

What, don't you vote? Doesn't that change things?

I vote NDP in a mega NDP stronghold. My vote is worthless!

# ? Sep 3, 2018 02:50

TrueChaos: Nov 14, 2006

computer angel posted:

hmmm... According to this site:
"Technically, there is no "intoxication" defence to criminal charges in Canadian law. Rather, in some cases, evidence of an accused's intoxication is relevant either a) to rebut the mental element or, more rarely, the act element which the prosecution must prove for conviction; or b) to support the availability of some defences. The mere loss of inhibition caused by intoxication is not a defence...A preliminary distinction must be drawn between "voluntary" and "involuntary" intoxication"
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/intoxication-defence-of/

This apparently deals with voluntary intoxication. It should be noted that I think that site is referencing the Canada wide law that is still in effect - this judge shot down the law only in Ontario, though it'd probably fall in other provinces as well if challenged. I'm hopeful our resident lawyer will chime in.

E- Further down on that page:
Specific Intent
Foundational English common law restricted intoxication evidence to the issue of whether an accused had the capacity to form specific intent. The modern Canadian rule is that the evidence is relevant to this issue and also to whether the accused in fact had the specific intent. If intoxication evidence raises a reasonable doubt about whether the accused either had the capacity to have or in fact had the specific intent, the accused cannot be convicted of a specific intent offence - but might be convicted of an included general intent offence. Thus, an accused charged with murder might be convicted of manslaughter if the accused was intoxicated at the time of the offence. In practice, the degree of intoxication must be severe before it raises the requisite reasonable doubt.

TrueChaos fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Sep 3, 2018

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:11

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

White Nationalist candidate for mayor of Toronto

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:14

Terror Sweat: Mar 15, 2009

CLAM DOWN posted:

loving millenials

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYrKYETorM8

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:24

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

White Nationalist candidate for mayor of Toronto

Welcome to like two months ago

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:26

Dinosaurtrain: Mar 7, 2018; by R. Guyovich

Unironically I hope mayor Goldy wins

Cuz gently caress Toronto

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:38

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

Reince Penis posted:

Mexico might have moral high ground but we have

Lmao read what Mexico does to illegal immigrants from places like Guatemala Honduras and El Salvador crossing the Mexican southern border.

Moral high ground my rear end.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:49

Rockstar Massacre: Mar 2, 2009; i only have a crazy life
because i make risky decisions
from a position of
unreasonable self-confidence

i'm suprised so many of you responded eith hostility to Det when you must all be dead aware that they're absolutely right and they could very well have gleaned their criticisms from this very thread.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:50

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

Utgardaloki posted:

i'm suprised so many of you responded eith hostility to Det when you must all be dead aware that they're absolutely right and they could very well have gleaned their criticisms from this very thread.

They interrupted Beasties chat!! If they wanted to be right about something, instead of saying a bunch of true stuff about how bad we are, they could have talked about how waspinator was better character than starscream or something.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 03:54

Hexigrammus: May 22, 2006; Cheech Wizard stories are clean, wholesome, reflective truths that go great with the marijuana munchies and a blow job.

Utgardaloki posted:

i'm suprised so many of you responded eith hostility to Det when you must all be dead aware that they're absolutely right and they could very well have gleaned their criticisms from this very thread.

Of course they're right, but why should they be treated any differently than a regular poster?

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:11

the talent deficit: Dec 20, 2003; self-deprecation is a very british trait, and problems can arise when the british attempt to do so with a foreign culture

we should embrace mexico as our allies in our eternal war against old stock canadians

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:16

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:17

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

I guess relatively they do have the moral high ground. They may be treating illegal immigrants from further south worse than even Trump but relatively speaking Canada is punching down from a more comfortable position where Mexico can't strike back.

But lmao y'all are far from saints when it comes to loving over people in a more vulnerable position than yourselves.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:18

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Utgardaloki posted:

i'm suprised so many of you responded eith hostility to Det when you must all be dead aware that they're absolutely right and they could very well have gleaned their criticisms from this very thread.

Nobody said they were wrong.

Just a dick.

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Sep 3, 2018

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:27

Evis: Feb 28, 2007; Flying Spaghetti Monster

It only takes one or a few bad cases to do serious harm to the public�s respect for the law.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:30

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:40

computer angel: Sep 9, 2008; Make it a double.

I posted about this topic in this thread to get some clarity on the issue because the handful of articles I read online made the decision seem heinous. As an adult I understand that certain topics, such as law, are considerably more complex than journalists are capable of conveying due to word limits and their own ignorance. So to that end I don't agree that "No one wants to take the time to understand". I think people do, it's just their sources are crap and with stuff like law it's really difficult to sit down and get to the heart of the matter.
I work in medicine, and patients often have incorrect ideas about treatment based on sensationalized articles they read on trusted news sites. I'm certainly not going to degrade them for not understanding ion channels or some such.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:52

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

They should have. That particular case was nonsense. Not the result, but that we�re ok with underspending on our justice system and it�ll happen again.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 04:57

computer angel: Sep 9, 2008; Make it a double.

Jordan7hm posted:

That particular case was nonsense.

Which case?

# ? Sep 3, 2018 05:05

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 05:24

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 05:25

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 05:34

computer angel: Sep 9, 2008; Make it a double.

I was responding to them under the impression they was some sort of law talking guy. I also get the impression they find it tedious to argue with laypeople about the law. That's fair. I was not looking for an argument, I posted an article along with a comment that was a quote from the article. No "feefees", just inviting commentary about what I perceive as a complicated issue made dumb through newsmedia in the appropriate thread.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 05:51

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

The justice system doesnt have any kind of unifying voice to broadcast information and invite conversation with the public like healthcare does. Its amazing that this is the case for a system that is so involved with the daily lives of people.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 06:13

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 06:16

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

White Nationalist candidate for mayor of Toronto

Nice, but who can we elect to keep Mexicans out of this thread?

# ? Sep 3, 2018 06:58

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Jesus, that's a bad take.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 07:32

Eej: Jun 17, 2007; HEAVYARMS

Utgardaloki posted:

i'm suprised so many of you responded eith hostility to Det when you must all be dead aware that they're absolutely right and they could very well have gleaned their criticisms from this very thread.

they literally started off by saying "hey i'm gonna poo poo on you for no reason" truly we must accept his post in good faith

*also it was/is extremely likely to be a driveby so who gives a poo poo about being nice

# ? Sep 3, 2018 10:28

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

Nah, I don�t mean the decision was nonsense, I mean the fact we�ve gotten here, and that it�s going to happen again and again. The reaction to Jordan was pretty muted.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 12:23

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 12:28

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

If blackout drunkenness is going to be an acceptable defense there is going to be a fuckload of domestic violence and rape charges that are going to get messed up.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 9, 2022

# ? Sep 3, 2018 14:59

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

If we don't want people to get so drunk that they can't form intent with regards to their actions, we could just make that itself illegal. Just like there is a legal limit fo BAC if you want to drive, there could be a separate, higher limit for all times and places. Sure, get drunk, but if you can't control yourself, you are a danger to others.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 15:15

terrorist ambulance: Nov 5, 2009

Drunkenness forming a defence to general intent offences is garbage and sight unseen I doubt that decision is surviving appeal

# ? Sep 3, 2018 15:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 01:43

bub spank: Feb 1, 2005; the THRILL

zapplez posted:

This makes you sound like a real rear end in a top hat btw.

If blackout drunkenness is going to be an acceptable defense there is going to be a fuckload of domestic violence and rape charges that are going to get messed up.

It's been a defence for the past 25 years and it didn't lead to anything of the sort. This case just confirms a longstanding precedent.

Also, the drunkenness threshhold is --REALLY-- high. The defence is literally being too drunk to control your body in a meaningful way. I'd recommend reading the entire 1994 Supreme Court decision (R v Daviault), but if you don't have time, the below passages summarize the scope of the defence:

quote:

6 Originally a crime was considered to be the commission of a physical act which was specifically prohibited by law. It was the act itself which was the sole element of the crime. If it was established that the act was committed by the accused then a finding of guilt would ensue. However, as early as the twelfth century, in large part through the influence of the canon law, it was established that there must also be a mental element combined with the prohibited act to constitute a crime. That is to say that the accused must have meant or intended to commit the prohibited act. The physical act and the mental element which together constitute a crime came to be known as the actus reus denoting the act, and the mens rea for the mental element. Like so many maxims they are imprecise and in many instances misleading.

7 For my purposes it is sufficient to say that for a great many years it has been understood that, unless the legislator provides otherwise, a crime must consist of the following elements. First, a physical element which consists of committing a prohibited act, creating a prohibited state of affairs, or omitting to do that which is required by the law. Second, the conduct in question must be willed; this is usually referred to as voluntariness. Some writers classify this element as part of the actus reus, others prefer to associate it with mens rea; however, all seem to agree that it is required. (See, generally, J.C.Smith and B. Hogan, Criminal Law (7th ed. 1992), at pp. 37 and ff.) If persons other than lawyers were asked what constituted willed or voluntary conduct they would respond that such an act or conduct must involve a mental element. It is the mental element, that is the act of will which makes the act or conduct willed or voluntary. In R. v. Th�roux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5, at p. 17, McLachlin J. had this to say concerning the actus reus:

The term mens rea, properly understood, does not encompass all of the mental elements of a crime. The actus reus has its own mental element; the act must be the voluntary act of the accused for the actus reus to exist. Mens rea, on the other hand, refers to the guilty mind, the wrongful intention, of the accused. Its function in criminal law is to prevent the conviction of the morally innocent � those who do not understand or intend the consequences of their acts. Typically, mens rea is concerned with the consequences of the prohibited actus reus.
...

9 With this concept of a crime established it soon came to be accepted that in certain situations a person who committed a prohibited physical act still could not be found guilty. A number of examples come to mind. For instance, if a person in a state of automatism as a result of a blow on the head committed a prohibited act that he was not consciously aware of committing, he could not be found guilty since the mental element involved in committing a willed voluntary act and the mental element of intending to commit the act were absent. Thus neither the requisite actus reus or mens rea for the offence was present. The result would be the same in the case of a person who had an unexpected reaction to medication which rendered him totally unaware of his actions. Similarly, if an accused, during an epileptic seizure, with no knowledge of what he was doing, shot and killed a victim, he could not be found guilty of murder since both the ability to act voluntarily and the mental element of the intention to kill were absent. In all these instances the accused simply could not have formed the requisite intention to commit the prohibited act. Further, it was long ago recognized that a person suffering from a mental illness coming within the scope of what is now s. 16 of the Criminal Code could not be found guilty. That result may have arisen either from the recognition of the inability of a mentally ill accused to form the re quisite intention, or from the realization that the nature and quality of the prohibited act was not appreciated by the accused.

...

12 This appeal is concerned with situations of intoxication that are so extreme that they are akin to automatism. Such a state would render an accused incapable of either performing a willed act or of forming the minimal intent required for a general intent offence. I will approach the issue primarily on the basis that the extreme intoxication renders an accused incapable of forming the requisite minimum intent. I have taken the reasons of Sopinka J. to have dealt with the issue on the basis of mens rea

...

59 There are some who argue that Wilson J.'s suggestion favours the extremely drunk while ignoring those who are less inebriated. (See, for example, T. Quigley, in "Bernard on Intoxication: Principle, Policy and Points in Between � Two Comments", supra, at pp. 171-73.) I cannot agree with that contention. It must be remembered that those who are a "little" drunk can readily form the requisite mental element to commit the offence. The alcohol-induced relaxation of both inhibitions and socially acceptable behaviour has never been accepted as a factor or excuse in determining whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea. Given the minimal nature of the mental element required for crimes of general intent, even those who are significantly drunk will usually be able to form the requisite mens rea and will be found to have acted voluntarily. In reality it is only those who can demonstrate that they were in such an extreme degree of intoxication that they were in a state akin to automatism or insanity that might expect to raise a reasonable doubt as to their ability to form the minimal mental element required for a general intent offence. Neither an insane person nor one in a state of automatism is capable of forming the minimum intent required for a general intent offence. Similarly, as the words themselves imply, "drunkenness akin to insanity or automatism" describes a person so severely intoxicated that he is incapable of forming even the minimal intent required of a general intent offence. The phrase refers to a person so drunk that he is an automaton. As such he may be capable of voluntary acts such as moving his arms and legs but is quite incapable of forming the most basic or simple intent required to perform the act prohibited by a general intent offence. I believe that Wilson J.'s modification of the Leary rule is a judge-fashioned remedy that can be adopted to remedy a judge-made law which, by eliminating the mental element of a crime, offends the Charter.

60 It is obvious that it will only be on rare occasions that evidence of such an extreme state of intoxication can be advanced and perhaps only on still rarer occasions is it likely to be successful. Nonetheless, the adoption of this alternative would avoid infringement of the Charter.

bub spank fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Sep 3, 2018

# ? Sep 3, 2018 15:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »