Exam Question: Under cover Scottish bobbies in regular civic summer clothing follow a family walking out of a restaurant and continue to follow them into a parking area in Glasgow near Thornliebank; right near the overground British Rail Train station. They are not in uniform and are not identifiable as bobbies or police based on the videos and images provided in the news. They have a certain amplitude and are looking at the family and their movements the whole time, making eye contact occasionally. The bar tender accused them of trying to pay with a French bank card that has not been activated yet nor delivered to the rightful bank account holder. The coffee was very very sweet and very very hot; too much sugars maybe and not enough water such that his blood sugar levels went up. Were they trying to...poison them? So, they paid cash. They did not use the card but left it visible on the table so the bar tender could see the name of the account holder; a regular guy. They took the card with them. The family enter their vehicle and attempt to drive off but the individuals (really bobbies in civilian clothing) that were following them, block their way. The family in the vehicle honk the horn but one of the individuals blocking their vehicle and their path brandish a hammer from a knapsack. The second individual blocking the way seems to be motioning to draw something out from behind her back; a gun maybe. The driver in the car with his family steps on the accelerator to ensure the individuals blocking their path of escape actually move out of the way. The whole event is caught on a dash board camera, on cctv footage and on mobile phone videos. What subjects of law are best used to address this scenario? If you choose civil litigation or tort law that is one possibility, state one type of Tort that could be used to sue the pursuers with the hammer. Discuss. Click here.
Exam Question:
Under cover Scottish bobbies in regular civic summer clothing follow a family walking out of a restaurant and continue to follow them into a parking area in Glasgow near Thornliebank; right near the overground British Rail Train station.
They are not in uniform and are not identifiable as bobbies or police based on the videos and images provided in the news. They have a certain amplitude and are looking at the family and their movements the whole time, making eye contact occasionally. The bar tender accused them of trying to pay with a French bank card that has not been activated yet nor delivered to the rightful bank account holder. The coffee was very very sweet and very very hot; too much sugars maybe and not enough water such that his blood sugar levels went up. An old man shouts out as they walk down the high street that the message of the bible is about "....consequences in life and community if you ignore its chastening and follow only one's more unevolved innate personal cause in seeking one's own selfish personal hegemony. Follow the laws of God and men written in observation of the consequences if you do not follow them."
Were they trying to...poison them? So, they paid cash. They did not use the card but left it visible on the table so the bar tender could see the name of the account holder; a regular guy. They took the card with them. The family enter their vehicle and attempt to drive off but the individuals (really bobbies in civilian clothing) that were following them, block their way. The family in the vehicle honk the horn but one of the individuals blocking their vehicle and their path brandish a hammer from a knapsack. The second individual blocking the way seems to be motioning to draw something out from behind her back; a gun maybe. The driver in the car with his family steps on the accelerator to ensure the individuals blocking their path of escape actually move out of the way. The whole event is caught on a dash board camera, on cctv footage and on mobile phone videos.
What subjects of law are best used to address this scenario? If you choose civil litigation or tort law that is one possibility, state one type of Tort that could be used to sue the pursuers with the hammer.
Discuss. Click here.
In the bible, the cook and the baker in Egypt are found by Joseph in prison maybe because they put too much sugar or not enough eel blood (or eel water at least) in the sauces. Too much sugar could be deliberate poisoning and some sugar from the factories have rat poison in them. The cure is a lot of water on a vacation when the regular tap water is old so you have to go on vacation where an old person or your young person may urinate in the piscine.
But, what does the Pharaoh do with people if he thinks he is being poisoned...thinks and he could be right or maybe the pots the cook chose to use that day were just old and they absorbed too much soap and pot cleaner? How would he know and be sure? What is it that they are doing why only people who drink bottled water are feeling good? See R v. Cunningham for more and the book of Genesis.
The short answer is that the Tort of Emotional Distress could be used to answer the scenario. Criminal law can also be used to answer this scenario. It would be that the scenario discloses the offence of assault and also intimidation. The family is the victim of these offences since the pursuers blocked their way and their vehicle. If the driver made contact with the pursuer and ran over him, it may be that they would like to charge the driver. It would seem that the driver did not kill the pursuer in the event. So, you could only charge the driver with assault and possibly assault causing GBH depending on the injuries. If the pursuer died but not necessarily from his injuries, a charge of murder or manslaughter cannot be maintained. When did he die, how did he die and what is the cause of death? Is he really dead; actually dead or is he out and about? Is there a death certificate? If he is not dead, there are no grounds for the charge of murder. Does the alleged victim actually exist? Is the name of the alleged victim consistent with the person injured allegedly with the photo provided in the news and police reports? The person at the scene was not uniform and looked like a former surfer or bicycle courier. Who are they and why are they following people? Maybe they are just hungry Ontarians who are not receiving any income support since they live in Guelph or Orangeville and they trying to mug people in Glasgow. How did they get to Glasgow? The alleged victim and pursuer of the family is not dead and the whole trial is a fraud to be investigated by the police as to how this happened. How can this happen? It seems the woman in the vehicle was pregnant and receiving only $20,000.00 per year income support but one of the pursuers was feminine transgender and was receiving $50,000.00 per year income support. The woman in the vehicle had an HRTO file before the Human Rights Tribunal claiming compensation for her feelings as she was being treated unequally. If they know what is going on, would the government make me bring evidence? The application should be enough. She had also called the police about laying hate crime charges to bring the matter to the attention of someone who would agree that something illegal, awry or eerie is transpiring since it is an act of hatred in words or deed if she is receiving only $20,000.00 per year income support and her sister is receiving no support as she lives in Campbellford, Scotland and she is pregnant also. Also, it does not really help if only some people can afford to pay for their groceries during an era of increased joblessness as caused by automation. Yet, the transgender receive $50000.00 per year all over the province. But, if you need to make money to build a bridge, maybe you put up the sales tax for a day by .05%. from 20% to 20.5%. The people will still buy their bread and milk. You gave them the money and they will spend it because they need to eat.
The holocaust happened. However, hatred is hatred in gestures such as non payment or unequal payment and in such other nonverbal statements or actions. This is not how we are to treat each other. This is not what we teach our children in school or in police training.
Public incitement of hatred
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)
identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)
public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)
statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)
With respect to the injured pursuer, a charge of GBH would suffice or you let this go and try something else to get the guy and you do it clean since you really think he is wrong about the bank card but he did not use the card. Maybe you set up a road stop and get him for refusing a breath sample or for providing a sample with low readings or any reading even if it does not evidence intoxication during a road stop but charge him any way and see him in court. But, no on will swear the information because the numbers do not disclose an offence or they are deliberately conflicted in your notes; for the Crown and the Court to say what to do with your accidentally, mistakenly conflicted notes that show there is no knowable, certain reading....that is kind of contempt of Court but not really since it is a mistake but with evidence like this, we would not let the Court convict the accused, on evidence like this, and the Judge would actively advise the Crown to withdraw the charges once it is brought to our attention during trial. We would also order costs to be paid by the Crown to the accused for his time in Court. When he found out the accused and the people in his home town were not receiving their income support, he made a call to the Judicial Counsel or someone to regularize payment for those people and to make it equal at $50,000.00 per year. The Judge has no absolute authority find anyone in contempt as the a court does not have this jurisdiction but can take an hour if they wish to correct someone and lecture them in chambers and counsel must attend if summoned. The Crown can bring an application if there is good reason but appearing late due to traffic for a meeting that, 2 days before, was cancelled but the cancellation was not communicated to the Court or other participants is not the good reason. The issue is that we have due process and the penalty for contempt is jail time even though it is a summary election offence. The bar of penalty is a bit too high and if you show up late from now on maybe the judge sends you to disciplinary reviews where if there is no good reason for your lateness, you pay a fine between $2000.00 to $10,000.00 in the new system and must also offer a letter of apology to the Judge and send a box of mineral water if you need his recommendations one day for your application to be a Master of the Court of a Justice of the Peace. Maybe the Judge will teach a module in the ongoing CPD training that everyone will have to endure and everyone will have to bare a license that is either full or provisional and we will no longer be a continent of financially segregated people living a substandard experience in the global economy where we say we Scrooge break the law and Court rules as Court representatives because we need to eat and those who do not understand this culture are supposed to be just naive. We will all have enough money.
If he died due to a pre existing health vulnerability or condition that was aggravated by the injuries as caused by the driver running over him, then a charge of manslaughter or murder could apply under "the thin skull" rule where you take your victim as you find him. But for the accident that aggravated his thin skull or unusual anemia, he would not have died; we could say. But, the death would have to be imminent. Did he die due to some other intervening cause like a cold draft in the triage or was he placed in an elevator headed to the organ donation room by mistake and killed in the dismemberment; a mistake in the room assignment is the cause of death! As such, we call this an intervening cause of events that led to the death. We need a death certificate and other reports to verify the actual causes of a death if there was a death. Without this evidence, the file is contemptuous; contempt of Court. North America is an attritive environment sometimes to civilised people with civilised expectations of respect for equality in benefits and the avoidance of any expressions of hatred. This is not happening in Russia while but it happens in North America. You say the Russians do not respect the vote or the democratic process but at least they understand that the defending the dignity of the lives of your people is the only underlying purpose in national defense and flying at Mach 3 in a machine while your people are dying in your country for want of things and money makes the machine pointless.
Clearly, the pursuing assailant that had followed the family to mug them, as we thought, was alive and well but injured, receiving attention for his injuries, speaking and connecting right after that accident or collision. Maybe the man was scared and stepped on the wrong pedal; the accelerator and not the brakes. The accident or collision with the vehicle on its own did not kill him.
With all of this, are there any defenses that could be applied in the case of the driver? We could say the driver is entitled to the defense of escape or fleeing the scene where he believed he was at risk of being attacked or harmed. He is also entitled to the defense of self defense and was entitled to use any means within his availability to defend human life or property that he saw was at risk based on the facts as he reasonably believed them to be. Both defenses cancel the specific mens rea intent that are impugned in the charges he faces; in the main charge and also in the lesser and included offences. Maybe the man was scared and stepped on the wrong pedal; the accelerator and not the brakes. The accident or collision with the vehicle on its own did not kill him. Wouldn't all of this law help people before the Court in Canada also? It probably would. It's the law. It's also the law in the United States.
Let us know how we could help you with a reading of your file or with an answer to your question. We provide a report based on our research from our own libraries. Email: info.angelronan@mail.com. If you need someone to attend a Court or Tribunal with you, let us know and we will help in Toronto or in the UK. We will provide you a review and report concerning your situation much like what you see here and we will prepare to attend Court or a tribunal with you or we will send the file to someone else in your area who we are confident can help.
Thank you.
Angel Ronan Research.
"Appreciating Grace and Community"
If you found this demonstrated our renowned helpfulness, hit the donate button. We work with SDGCK; our new lead service provider. They monitor the email address above. If you would like to say you are a volunteer director on your resume that contributes with us, let us know who you are and we can place you on our list of volunteer directors. Let people know about us. Send your email to info.angelronan@mail.com. This answer was prepared with legal research provided by Warren A. Lyon, JD, Ottawa, LL.B{Hons}{London},U of L, SOAS, University of London.
If you are making a payment/donation for your report, use the same link. Let us know by email when you made payment.
Comments
Post a Comment