Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MERC]

Intent is a huge legal defense In the above post you say it is not, yet you say in the bar fight it is(wtf). It in fact is, instead of a murder charge or a criminal negligence charge it is a manslaughter charge based solely on intent. That is his legal defense, hello!!!. You just contradicted your self....

Ever hear of willful blindness??? That is another defense based solely on intent. The defended was unknowingly breaking the law by no fault of his own. That is why we have judges and a court of law. Officers of the law know a little about the law. There not lawyers for a reason. That's why we have crown lawyers.

Driving down the road and no paying attention to road signs is ignorance, no excuse. Now if the speedometer was off by no fault of someone then for all he knows he was following the law and there is nothing he could have done unless it was a large difference in which one should have known.

I'd love to see a case where the judge upheld the charge.

Now, as far as the filling out the licenses, the re-printable ones make a great loop-hole that any poacher should and does use. Anyone who doesn't is most likely not intending to break the law.

Like I said, the bad guys know what they are doing (that's why they don't get caught!) and the honest people who make simple mistakes that have little effect (in this case) get nailed. Well guess what.... I know he will probably have resentment towards the "man" and probably never call RAPP as he now dislikes them.

In the end there is now one less guy who is going to be supportive of the officers and what good does that do???

Remember, it's not about enforcing rules.... It's about have a positive effect in a whole using the rules in certain cases.

But oh well, lets just let the officers chase good guys thinking they are making a difference why the bad guys continue un-touched. And trust me, the poachers rarely get caught as the officers are stupidly chasing the wrong people, and the poachers know how the law works and use it to their advantage..... With the help of paper licenses

And what was accomplished??? Nothing poachers are still poaching. I see them all the time and I'm even surprised that I'm seeing them allot more. Oh well, for the most part they are nice people and always give me room so I'm not inconvenienced and have no problem with them.

Intent or Mens Rea in the bar fight example above was used to crudely show that even if your intent is not to break the law there are consequences for the eventual result if a law end up being broken. 

If you want to bring up wilful blindness, you really need to look at what it means.  Here is the most recent Supreme Court decision regarding wilful blindness.  R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13

In it you will see that one judge had determined that Mens Rea (intent) was not  component of an accused mind set and was therefore acquitted.  At appeal, the judge determined that the previous finding of acquittal was erroneous because the previous judge had not considered wilful blindness.  Wilful blindness simply is a decision that a person chooses to not find out that what he or she is doing is wrong when they strongly suspect it might.

Criminal code of Canada makes one reference:

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if
(a) the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s

(i) self-induced intoxication, or

(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or

That section is in relation to sexual exploitation (section 153.1 if you're really interested).

As to seeing people breaking the law, there is the RAPP line (1-877-952-7277).  They may not come every time you call but they will start responding when there is a pattern of calls coming in.  Rodney would probably have more info.

[glx]

Ask yourself the question, did you do it, in reference to the alledged offence.  There are two possible answers, yes or no.  We already know the answer. 

Answering, I didnt have my pen, my pen died, I lost my pen, I usually dont do this, I have never done anything like this is only trying to minimize and justify the situation.   Intent need not be proved, this is not a criminal case.  When it comes to Wildlife Act, Motor Vehicle act etc, intent does not matter, did you do it is what matters. 

Its a small fine, it could have been worse.  Man up, pay the fine, and learn from it.   

[doja]

MERC, everything has context and circumstances.

Here's a fact. I beat a criminal indictment for a very serious charge just recently based solely on willful blindness. This is a fact! I won't go into detail but the charge was dropped as it would lead to a not guilty. Many people thought I was screwed but I didn't. I believed in the system and knew I had no intent. My good history also backed that up. I fought for what I belived in and won.


Now what you reference is an exception to a particular charge. If there is no exception then it may be a valid defense, of course there are circumstances/facts that may weaken or strengthen that defense.

[doja]

Ask yourself the question, did you do it, in reference to the alledged offence.  There are two possible answers, yes or no.  We already know the answer.  

Answering, I didnt have my pen, my pen died, I lost my pen, I usually dont do this, I have never done anything like this is only trying to minimize and justify the situation.   Intent need not be proved, this is not a criminal case.  When it comes to Wildlife Act, Motor Vehicle act etc, intent does not matter, did you do it is what matters.  

Its a small fine, it could have been worse.  Man up, pay the fine, and learn from it.  

What if while steelheading your pen froze??? This happens to me at work and I could see it happening on the river too. You could have a whole pack of pens but you would be guilty. I think that would be a valid defense as I don't know where to obtain freeze prof pens.

GLX, If you look at the new topic I posted you will see that while one can be fully within the law they can be also charged as well.

I said earlier that while fishing from my kayak I cannot record immediately sometimes as the heavy and sideways rain will destroy my license. I recorded as soon as I can reasonbly do so and I bet a call to DFO would support this.

It is also illegal to posses female crabs. So when you pull your trap and dump them out on the boat deck you are now breaking the law.... NOT as your intent was not to retain them, BUT If you read the rule it says posses not retain. There for every crabber is breaking the law.

[bbronswyk2000]

What if while steelheading your pen froze??? This happens to me at work and I could see it happening on the river too. You could have a whole pack of pens but you would be guilty. I think that would be a valid defense as I don't know where to obtain freeze prof pens.

GLX, If you look at the new topic I posted you will see that while one can be fully within the law they can be also charged as well.

Bad example as you could prove that your pen is frozen and I am sure that any CO would excuse that. In this case the original poster did not have a pen on his possession making him guilty.

[skaha]

I said earlier that while fishing from my kayak I cannot record immediately sometimes as the heavy and sideways rain will destroy my license. I recorded as soon as I can reasonbly do so and I bet a call to DFO would support this.

It is also illegal to posses female crabs. So when you pull your trap and dump them out on the boat deck you are now breaking the law.... NOT as your intent was not to retain them, BUT If you read the rule it says posses not retain. There for every crabber is breaking the law.
[/quote]

--I believe this is where discretion comes into play.
--Strictcly enforced comes to mind... generally doing a few KM over the speedlimit in a 100 k zone is not strictly enforced however doing a few Km over the speedlimit in a school zone is strictly enforced.
--I noticed in travels in USA recently some states have big signs on the highway... speedlimit strictly enforced... they also have electronic signs which give your speed so no speedometer not working excuse... I also noticed that they nailed guys that went over the speedlimit and the majority of people  adhered by the law in these ..strictly enforced areas.

-

[bbronswyk2000]

Skaha we have some of those electronic signs here in the lower mainland. We had one here in Maple Ridge but for some reason it was recently taken down.

[Geff_t]

Skaha we have some of those electronic signs here in the lower mainland. We had one here in Maple Ridge but for some reason it was recently taken down.

  Probably stolen by some low life bum.

[NiceFish]

usually have them near construction zones where the limit is strictly enforced during working hours i believe

[andychan]

from the regs:

section 22. Catch Records

22. Where a licence holder catches and retains a lingcod or a chinook salmon, the licence holder shall immediately record the catch in ink on the licence.

This thread got me reading. I saw this in the fishing regs and was wondering - legally speaking does that mean it's a violation if your buddy with a pen writes down in your license that you caught a fish? Would that then not be a violation of the act if someone else writes it down?

[bbronswyk2000]

Anyone notice the original poster is no longer a member of this site? Think it has something to do with this thread?

[Rodney]

He was offended by my sarcasm and requested to have the account removed.

[skaha]

--clownfish:

--if you're still monitoring this as a guest.... hope you reconscider and rejoin the discussion.
--I think this is a valuable discussion and some will have strong views however when you put up this kind of post you have to have thick skin.

-- One of the reasons I appreciate this discussion forum is they do allow a fair amount of latitude before raining in or closing a discussion... other forums are sanitized to the point of not allowing anything of controversy.

[andychan]

No one ?

from the regs:

section 22. Catch Records

22. Where a licence holder catches and retains a lingcod or a chinook salmon, the licence holder shall immediately record the catch in ink on the licence.

This thread got me reading. I saw this in the fishing regs and was wondering - legally speaking does that mean it's a violation if your buddy with a pen writes down in your license that you caught a fish? Would that then not be a violation of the act if someone else writes it down?

[BBarley]

Man, I always joked around saying I'd need to find a lawyer to determine if I was actually legally fishing, the BC fishing regulations, like some other provincial laws and rules, are nothing short of bullsh!t.

I'd be pissed too if I got a fine for not marking down my spring 10 seconds after I bonked it. As with everything though, there is usually two sides to the story..... who knows what was said and how the situation realistically presented itself. If you feel strongly that you were falsely accused, it's your right as a Canadian (assuming your Canadian) to fair trial and contesting the ticket.