WindsorFox wrote:
> Johnny Rebel wrote:
>> Snoogens Murphy wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 12:07 pm, WindsorFox
SPAMcox.net> wrote:>>>> Snoogens Murphy wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 18, 1:45 am, WindsorFox
SPAMcox.net> wrote:>>>>>> Snoogens Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 11:47 am, WindsorFox
SPAMcox.net> wrote:>>>>>>>> Snoogens Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 7:27 pm, WindsorFox
SPAMcox.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> Snoogens Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 6:26 pm, Johnny Rebel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mister2u wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, they should all be imprisoned for murder. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> security told
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them numerous times he did not speak English and they had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero business
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even going in at all until they had an interpretor. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of murder IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, not sure if they didn't have reason to 'go in' until an
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretor arrived, but they really didn't need to use a
>>>>>>>>>>>> taser on him
>>>>>>>>>>>> and could have gotten him down without that. As for them
>>>>>>>>>>>> being guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>> of murder, I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>> Murder? Give me a break. To find them guilty of murder you
>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>> show that they wanted to kill him. Do you honestly believe
>>>>>>>>>>> that was
>>>>>>>>>>> their intent? "Hey guys, let's kill this crazy foreigner!"
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say guilty of, charged with. Besides it would be 2nd
>>>>>>>>>> degree or manslaughter
>>>>>>>>> "They are all guilty of murder IMHO." - Windsor Fox
>>>>>>>> Yes, and your point? They should be charged with 2nd degree
>>>>>>>> murder
>>>>>>>> in my opinion. Do not sir, try to change my thoughts.
>>>>>>> If that is your opinion, you either (a) don't know what 2nd degree
>>>>>>> murder means, or (b) you think that the cops intended to kill the
>>>>>>> victim.
>>>>>> It sounds to me that you are not acquainted with the said
>>>>>> definition. As a one time peace officer, I am quite familiar with it
>>>>>> as used in the US. "A killing caused by dangerous conduct and the
>>>>>> offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."
>>>>> You may be shocked to discover that US legal definitions do not apply
>>>>> to Canada.
>>>> You may be shocked to know that I am in the US and that's what I
>>>> know and operate on, however I imagine the definition does not change
>>>> much if at all between here and there.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The assumption that other countries are the same as the US is a very,
>>> um... American attitude. The Canadian wording is: "meaning to cause
>>> death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he
>>> knows is likely to cause his death".
>>>
>>> Tasers are not likely to cause death. It's very unlikely. People
>>> have even volunteered to be tasered so that they know what it
>>> feels like.
>>
>> In a lot of respects Canada is the same. If you look at most of the
>> Canadian Medical/dental organisations, and gov't agencies, they mimic
>> each other in almost every respect. It is not a far jump to assume
>> legal definitions would be similar or the same.
>>
>> Taser are not meant to cause death, but I would be willing to bet if
>> someone just went out and tasered someone in the head, the charge would
>> be attempted murder. If not that, then assault with a deadly weapon
>> maybe? It is all how the tool is used...
>>
>> JR.
>>
>
> Ooo! you're opening up the 33%% more siz can of worms. Some do gooder
> group would be all over that one. "Illegal use of NON-leathal taser
> garners deadly weapon charge!" I can see the Picayune headlines now...
>
Zackly. The semantics can do you in, in court. :) But seriously,
anything can be considered a 'deadly weapon', it is all in the use of
the object, and of course intent. :)
--
Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.
-Tux.
