[peck420]

If Brown did instruct the PM to let go of him (OTI's posted CBC article), then mens rea would be legally satisfied.

To carry out an action, after the other party has explicitly denied consent, shows intent.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Now you're twisting and trying to deflect.

You said an assault is only an assault if there is criminal intent.

A lawyer says you're wrong.

And I know what you'll do, because you never admit to being wrong even when it's painfully obvious, but perhaps you should contact the lawyer in question and tell him that he's a dummy.

I'm sure he'll respect your opinion.

Yeah, double-down on your ignorance. There is no crime, ANY CRIME, unless there is mens rea. Vince Li: crazy, therefore no criminal intent, therefore not guilty of murder. Following along yet, dummy?

[shockedcanadian]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

quote]

You're out of your league now, dummy. In Canadian law, you're not guilty unless you have committed the actus reus of the crime (as described by the code) and have committed the act with mens rea (criminal intent). This is true of EVERY crime in the criminal code. No mens rea, no crime.

Furthermore the response from the MP was a bit much. I have no problem with Mulcair protecting his party and standing up for them, that's his job and it was obvious he was offended and even more angry than Trudeau. The MP speech after she returned from collecting herself was a bit much and I certainly don't condone his actions. When you make a major issue out of this type of "manhandling" it undermines more serious egregious forms of violence and abuses which many Canadian have experienced.

Can you imagine John McCain giving such a speech if he had been inadvertently elbowed by Obama? No way in hell. He would speak out that's for sure, but it would be to lash out, not play the victim. It has an odor of political opportunism unfortunately.

In an ideal world. Trudeau would have personally and privately apologized to the MP after a public apology. He would face some consequences, though not sure how to address this as it was not intentional. He will already suffer some political damage for the next few years over this.

We have terrorists who want to kill us and our allies, we have a security apparatus that has run amok and turned our country into a former Eastern Bloc nation. We have a massive theft ring going on in Ontario in the form of the government and their "enablers" (OPP). All of this, and we have Obama and the Mexican president coming to Canada in a months time.

No wonder our allies don't trust us...

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yeah, double-down on your ignorance. There is no crime, ANY CRIME, unless there is mens rea. Vince Li: crazy, therefore no criminal intent, therefore not guilty of murder. Following along yet, dummy?

I dunno. Comparing JT to Vince Li seems a bit over the top. But maybe you have a point.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yeah, double-down on your ignorance. There is no crime, ANY CRIME, unless there is mens rea. Vince Li: crazy, therefore no criminal intent, therefore not guilty of murder. Following along yet, dummy?

I'll take advice from someone that's actually a lawyer. Not just a guy that pretends to be one on the Internet.

[OnTheIce]

peck420 peck420:

If Brown did instruct the PM to let go of him (OTI's posted CBC article), then mens rea would be legally satisfied.

To carry out an action, after the other party has explicitly denied consent, shows intent.

Nope! It wouldn't because Lemmy said so.

The lawyers don't know shit.

[peck420]

Just out of curiosity, did PM Trudeau apologize to MP Brown?

I have found apologizes to all the other parties, but none directly to the MP Brown.

[shockedcanadian]

peck420 peck420:

Just out of curiosity, did PM Trudeau apologize to MP Brown?

I have found apologizes to all the other parties, but none directly to the MP Brown.

Brown is a right wing Conservative, no apology will be forthcoming...

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

peck420 peck420:

If Brown did instruct the PM to let go of him (OTI's posted CBC article), then mens rea would be legally satisfied.

To carry out an action, after the other party has explicitly denied consent, shows intent.

Nope! It wouldn't because Lemmy said so.

The lawyers don't know shit.

Okay, smartass, then when are the charges being laid?

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Okay, smartass, then when are the charges being laid?

Charges aren't filed for every single assault that's ever taken place.

Read the article, the actual lawyers explain it quite well.

[Lemmy]

That's right. Because there is a standard that is necessary first. It's called criminal intent. Which is why we're back to the "molehill" business that I began.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's right. Because there is a standard that is necessary first. It's called criminal intent. Which is why we're back to the "molehill" business that I began.

You're arguing with lawyers and you're not a lawyer.

You have no credibility on this issue. Being a know-it-all doesn't count.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You're arguing with lawyers

You're a lawyer?

OTI OTI:

you're not a lawyer

No, eh? You know that how?

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You're arguing with lawyers

You're a lawyer?

OTI OTI:

you're not a lawyer

No, eh? You know that how?

I'm repeating the comments from a lawyer.

You're disputing those comments.

Give the lawyer a call. Tell him how wrong he is.

If you are a lawyer, then I'm sure he'll greatly appreciate your input and correction.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I'm repeating the comments from a lawyer.

No, you're misinterpreting those comments.

OTI OTI:

You're disputing those comments.

Nope, just your misunderstanding of them.