26 February 2009

Okay Dawg... wind up the squirrels...

...'cos I just wanna hear how this is gonna be a bad thing for Canada.

**********

FROM THE COMMENTS: Don't bogart that joint...

"Zorpheus says... Under this new law, is Neo guilty of First Degree Murder? Well on the surface I would have to say yes?"
Geez, Zorph... is that what they're teaching at "imaginary law school" these days?

P.S. -- Take heart, Zee... the good news is that Hedy Fry is completely on board... in her own inimitable, totally made-up way.

[*]

UPDATE: Bad news, Zorph...

...apparently your fuzzy-bunny socialist pals want to bring back "flogging & keel-hauling"...
The NDP and the Liberals charged that the Conservatives are not going far enough by promising to elevate all gang-killings to first-degree murder, to create a criminal offence for drive-by shootings, and to introduce new penalties for attacks on police.
Oh, the huge manatee!

**********

LAST WORD: "Oops there goes another..."
A man was killed on Thursday night in a shooting outside the York Civic Centre in the city’s west end.

Authorities were called to the scene at 2700 Eglinton Ave. W. between Keele Street and Black Creek Drive, at about 7 p.m. after reports of gunshots being fired. The man was found dead inside an SUV outside of the building, police said.
*


19 comments:

Zorpheous said...

Would you like to know how this can become a very bad thing? Ok, easily done.

Under this law (I have not read it, but lets just take it on the face value)

1) If you commit a crime that results in a death of another human being, whether it was your intent to kill a person or not, whether you intend to harm a person or not , you have no problem with it being considered first degree murder if,...
2) The person who cause the accidental and/or unintentional death is a member of a gang or an organized crime group.

This is what you are Saying Neo? Be specific here Neo,... Let me help you,... 1) How do you define Memeber? 2) How do you define Gang? 3) How do you define Organized Crime Group?

Let me make this really easy for Neo, lets make a real life senario that could be possible.

Lets Say Bubba belongs to the Hells Angels (you agree the Hells Angels are a gang and a Organized Criminal Group, yes?) Good

Now lets say Bubba is late for his "Club meeting" where they are going to talk about about all sorts of nefarious evil and legal doings, so Neo decides to speed, doing 100 kph over the legal limit you agree that this is criminal behavior, yes?) Good!

Now Bubba zigs when should had zagged an causes an accident where some one tragically dies, but Neo lives.

Under this new law, is Neo guilty of First Degree Murder? Well on the surface I would have to say yes?

Now remember Neo, Bubba maybe a crook, he may be a scum bag, we may not like him on our streets because he does a lot of things that neither of like, but does that mean he purposely planned to murder that other specific person?

Oh and Neo, it goes down hill after this example, very, very quickly. Just remember Neo, "Good Intention" Laws usually end up having some very bad consequences for society.

Anonymous said...

"Good Intention" Laws usually end up having some very bad consequences for society.
Yah, just look at the left

Neo Conservative said...

*
"zorpheus fantasises... you get into an accident with an outlaw biker and stephen harper locks you up for the rest of your life"

of course... that could happen, huh?

sorry z... i'm gonna have to file this one under... "dave's not here, man".

the thing is, we've got thugs murdering people on video... and we can't even prosecute them... so i'm guessin' your little fantasy is just that much further off the bubble.

but zorph... if you really believe we're living in a vicious knuckle-draggin', neo-con police state... how exactly do you sleep at night? i mean... why not head off to cuba, or some other socialist paradise where you can really suckle off mommy fidel's wrinkled teats?

funny how that works.

*

langmann said...

Zorph says "I have not read it, but lets just take it on the face value"

Ok so read it and then get back to us with regards to your theory because right now you're talking out of the wrong hole.

I thik you may notice they make some of the same clarifications that are made when someone ie: is denied insurance when he uses a vehicles to commit a crime, or what all lefties love: commits a "hate" crime.

Having looked at some of the other laws ie: mandatory sentences for "drive by shootings" I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"langmann says... because right now you're talking out of the wrong hole"

wrong hole, bong hole... that's our boy zorph.

let's also not overlook that we still have a minority government situation here.

if the "coalition of the swilling" wants to vote down these repressive police state measures, they are perfectly free to do so.

i'm sure most canadians, never mind vancouverites, would be able to draw their own conclusions from that.

*

Zorpheous said...

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you, that "Neo" should have read Bubba.

Never ment to imply Bubba killed you in the accident.

Now deal with the topic.

Is Babba guilty of first degree murder?

Bubba, was engaged in criminal activity, he belongs to organized crime and a real gang. His crime occured while he was in transit to meet with other criminals and gang members.

First degree murder or not.

Straight up or down question.

Zorpheous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good Intention" Laws usually end up having some very bad consequences for society.
Yah, just look at the left

3:52 PM, February 26, 2009

Very very true, and one very real example are the the CHRC and section 13.1.

Zorpheous said...

Blogger langmann said...

Having looked at some of the other laws ie: mandatory sentences for "drive by shootings" I cannot see what is wrong with that.

I no problem with this, or manditory sentencing for any crimes that committed with a fire arm. You break the law and use a fire arm (any fire arm during the commission of that crime) you deserve to have your arse locked up for a very long time.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"zorpheus proclaims... Straight up or down question."

are you serious, zee?

you're really gonna stick with "the bubba analogy"?

lemme see... there's a hypothetical biker who kills a hypothetical bystander and then a non-hypothetical blogger (funny that you'd choose me, huh?) gets a hypothetical first degree murder charge laid against them.

and you seriously expect me to participate in this kafka-esque fantasy world you've created for yourself here?

i'd say, at minimum, we have a pretty different idea of what constitutes a "straight up or down question".

sorry pal... i'm diming you out to liblogs... it's time for an intervention.

*

Zorpheous said...

Ok, Neo, I will try one last time.

I screwed up, my fault, 100% The name "neo" in that last section

Under this new law, is Neo guilty of First Degree Murder? Well on the surface I would have to say yes?

should have read BUBBA My mistake, I am very sorry it has upset so.

Now, you can either accept my apology or not, if you move past this mistake of mine, then there is very little in continuing.

Do we continue or not?

Zorpheous said...

If my scenario is to confusing for you follow Neo, then I would be more than willing to retype it and simplify it to avoid any future confusion

Neo Conservative said...

*
"Zorpheous said... If my scenario is to confusing for you follow"

zorph... the problem is... it's not even a scenario... it's a robert crumb poster.

hey, how about you share how you feel... about the liberals and the dippers jumping in and howling that the legislation simply doesn't go far enough?

that work for you?

*

Zorpheous said...

Lets try again Neo

OTTAWA — The Harper government unveiled new legislation it says will combat violence by gangs, including making homicides tied to organized crime automatically carry a first-degree murder charge.

Do you agree with statement, yes or no? Let me be clear, is this the intent and mean of the new law?

hey, how about you share how you feel... about the liberals and the dippers jumping in and howling that the legislation simply doesn't go far enough?

Don't know who is saying this, nor do I care. This is you and I talking here Neo, lets deal with that. If you want to discuss what other people are talking about, I suggest you go talk to them about their positions

Zorpheous said...

Sorry Neo, will have to continue this later. Gotta run.

Rich said...

Not going far enough?
I had to reread the article as I could not believe that the libs & dips could have any position even remotely close to that reported in the article.
Talk about a 180!
I think a check for pods is in order.

langmann said...

@ Zorph:

Your example makes no sense because it is not based upon the actual written law but simply your interpretation of what might or might not be in a law you haven't read.

I am glad we both agree that firearms offences should result in a substantial prison sentence. I would extend that to any willful act with intent that endangers human life, whether it is with a machine gun or a machete or a vehicle.

And that's my main problem as it seems we already have the laws for most of these things but that punishment is not being applied adequately.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"zorpheus says... This is you and I talking here Neo, lets deal with that"

what i'm sayin' zorph. i think maybe you've been watching too much law & order.

let's keep it simple.

do i support the conservatives proposed legislation?

yup.

and i'll raise you one. we've got people like paul bernardo and clifford olsen sitting in jail at taxpayer expense... indisputable dead bang killers... i say let's fry them.

better yet, half fry 'em, revive 'em and fry 'em again.

that clear enough for you? c'mon zee... show me the power of love.

*

MadTrucker said...

Zorpheus....Zorpheus....

Geez Louise, bro. Your posts in these comments just leaves me shaking my head in pity at your vacuous, knee-jerk leftardism. In the scenario you described in your first post, the correct answer to everything as you lay it out is that the investigating officer INVESTIGATES and then lays the CHARGES (not CONVICTIONS!), that he deems appropriate. Now perhaps, -unlikely, but perhaps,- he might just believe that gang related first degree homicide is justified in your little scenario and files those charges against that poor innocent Hells Angel.

Miscarriage of justice, you cry!

Curse those evil cops, you whine!!

Damn Harper and his jackbooted laws, you snivel!!!

BUT WAIT....

It's not over yet...

Now that same nasty, black-hearted cop has to put on his Sunday best and explain in a court of law WHY he laid those heavy charges, and then back them up with PROOF. If he fails to do so, the defendant walks, and the cop is left sitting there with egg on his face. In more extreme cases, he may find himself on the receiving end of the legal system by a malicious ex-defendant wishing to turn the tables and exact revenge.

So you see, Zorph ol' buddy, I really can't conceive of our police playing fast and loose with these new laws because they don't get the final word. When the rubber hits the road, they still have to back it all up. In court.

Citizens with no gang affiliations whatsoever have nothing to fear from these new laws.

As for the gangbangers who get entangled in the grey areas as you described? They've already well established their worthlessness as human beings.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch...

ddt said...

If they really wanted to fix this, they should deny bail, get rid of concurrent sentences and add a zero on to length of those sentences.