Actually, this is incorrect, as far as I'm aware. I'm pretty sure the thin skull rule applies equally in the criminal context in Canada as it does in tort. Basically, if you're a wrongful actor, you take your victim as you find him. In other words, if you sucker punch a guy in the ear, and unbeknownst to you he has a medical condition that makes him ten times more likely to die from a sucker punch in the ear, that is not a defense.
We had a youth die here from a one punch. I believe the technical cause of death was a brain aneurysm. The puncher was cleared due to the fact the prosecution could not prove the punch was the cause of the aneurysm or it was prexisting. I think they also considered that the punch didn't necessarily cause the injury, but his head hitting the curb may have.
If it was his head hitting the curb following being punched that caused the aneurysm, the guy would be in jail. If they failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the punch caused the aneurysm (directly or indirectly), that would make more sense.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Do we know the guy threw it back into the car? The quote in the article says the guy threw it back at her, not necessarily that he threw it back into the car.
I'm assuming it's basically a copycat of the viral video of a russian motorcyclist throwing people's litter at them:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I have seen on the internet people saying "cigarette butt out the window = punch in the face". Also the above ^
So throwing a butt out the window is wrong. No dispute.
Throwing it back in can be quite dangerous. There are laws for distracted driving, which recognize the danger for what is a self imposed and controllable distraction. I should think that the distraction of something burning in their car could make the driver lose a lot more focus and become much more dangerous in a moving vehicle. It is not something under their control.
So the first thrower (out) did something wrong, the guy who threw it back did something more wrong and much more reckless (assuming that the car outside the Starbucks was in a typical urban area and that concrete jungles are less susceptible to wildfires than, say, forests)
Tragic either way. Too bad the vigilante throwing it in the car wasn't thinking of the potential consequences. Most people if they considered the danger he was creating, would not do so. (and by consequences, I mean the risk at which he put the driver, not suggesting that the escalation is by any means a reasonable consequence.)
Stupid and avoidable from both sides with unfortunately tragic consequences.
Edit: I assumed she was driving and he successfully threw it in the car. If she was out of the car then it is obviously not as dangerous.
Last edited by DeluxeMoustache; 08-10-2017 at 01:09 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
The quote in the article says the guy threw it back at her, not necessarily that he threw it back into the car.
I don't know if it makes an ounce of difference to me. Certainly wouldn't matter with regards to the legal aspect as he was clearly not an active threat if they had to follow him. It's a cigarette bud, her own, so it's not like it's going to kill her (well...cancer) and if it was still hot it's even more of a reason she deserved to have it thrown at her.
But assuming she's still in the vehicle with her window down, it's pretty much tomato tomato.
I have seen on the internet people saying "cigarette butt out the window = punch in the face". Also the above ^
So throwing a butt out the window is wrong. No dispute.
Throwing it back in can be quite dangerous. There are laws for distracted driving, which recognize the danger for what is a self imposed and controllable distraction. I should think that the distraction of something burning in their car could make the driver lose a lot more focus and become much more dangerous in a moving vehicle. It is not something under their control.
So the first thrower (out) did something wrong, the guy who threw it back did something more wrong and much more reckless (assuming that the car outside the Starbucks was in a typical urban area and that concrete jungles are less susceptible to wildfires than, say, forests)
Tragic either way. Too bad the vigilante throwing it in the car wasn't thinking of the potential consequences. Most people if they considered the danger he was creating, would not do so. (and by consequences, I mean the risk at which he put the driver, not suggesting that the escalation is by any means a reasonable consequence.)
Stupid and avoidable from both sides with unfortunately tragic consequences.
Edit: I assumed she was driving and he successfully threw it in the car. If she was out of the car then it is obviously not as dangerous.
Did they really throw it back in somehow when the person was driving?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the killer is either a cop or a relative of a cop.
I hope I'm wrong though.
*from what I remember of criminal law in class, it would be a one-punch manslaughter case.
am I missing something here?
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
The fact that you're guessing it was a cop or a relative of a cop. What a weird thing to think. What makes you figure that's the case?
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
The Following User Says Thank You to metallicat For This Useful Post:
Sounds like the death was accidental due to the way he fell. If you start a fight and both sides agree to go the cops consider it a mutual fight and won't lay charges. Even if your the one attacked.
Sounds like the death was accidental due to the way he fell. If you start a fight and both sides agree to go the cops consider it a mutual fight and won't lay charges. Even if your the one attacked.
That simply isn't true, but even if so, what makes you think both sides agreed?
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
Sounds like the death was accidental due to the way he fell. If you start a fight and both sides agree to go the cops consider it a mutual fight and won't lay charges. Even if your the one attacked.
No it doesn't. The man punched him. I'm not really sure I care how much he wanted to injure him, but as far as I'm concerned there was nothing accidental about it. What happened was an unfortunate but entirely possible result of a purposeful action.
If you purposefully attack someone and kill them, it wasn't an accident.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Is there anything in the criminal code that would punish him for fleeing the scene? If you're involved in a traffic accident, you see someone else on the ground bleeding, and you flee the scene and that person dies, I believe that's potentially life in prison under the criminal code. Is there any similar punishment for non-vehicular but otherwise similar incidents?
The fact that you're guessing it was a cop or a relative of a cop. What a weird thing to think. What makes you figure that's the case?
The police didn't release any details until a reporter bugged them a few weeks later.
And no charges yet? It's pretty clear who did it, there will be footage from the bank as well as paperwork showing exactly who it was. They could have arrested the guy that day if they wanted to.
Just seems suspicious to me. Like I said, I hope it's not the case but the RCMP doesn't instil a ton of confidence.
We had a youth die here from a one punch. I believe the technical cause of death was a brain aneurysm. The puncher was cleared due to the fact the prosecution could not prove the punch was the cause of the aneurysm or it was prexisting. I think they also considered that the punch didn't necessarily cause the injury, but his head hitting the curb may have.
Regardless the puncher never went to jail.
Absolutely ridiculous.
If the victim lived, the perpetrator would have faced Assault Causing Bodily Harm charges. Because he died, he is cleared???
I sure hope the Crown decides to lay charges against the man, considering it was a sucker-punch.
am I missing something here?
