FREE TAPATALK APP

LashL · 22nd November 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Here, we part company. I already posted the latest refinement to their lordships' definition in the UK, which dates back to 2004, not decades. For a start, it is as good as impossible to distinguish 'gross' negligence from routine negligence. Go right ahead and do it. And you are not allowed to shade the dividing line into recklessness btw.

I was referring to Canada, not the UK. We have had our crim neg causing bh and crim neg causing death laws on the books for a long time, and we manage it just fine.

anglolawyer · 22nd November 2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

I was referring to Canada, not the UK. We have had our crim neg causing bh and crim neg causing death laws on the books for a long time, and we manage it just fine.

Well, you must just be better lawyers than us I s'ppose. We get our panties all bunched up (I have decided to adopt this useful expression, recently acquired) all the way up to the House of Lords!

mike3 · 22nd November 2012, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

As terrible as it is for the officer and his family, he shouldn't be treated in prosecution or sentencing any differently than individuals charged and convicted for the same crime.

Most jurisdictions have some sort of safe storage or child safe statutes wrt firearms, as they well should, but in most cases I'm familar with in incidents of negligence that results in a fatal the general consensus (as it is here) seems to be that the poor family "has suffered enough" and jail time or fines would just cause further suffering.

I'm of the opinion that if the case is as described, the father should serve jail time, if other individuals in that jurisdiction have after being convicted.

Professional firearms users have -0- excuses for negligent behavior wrt firearms storage and use.

What would be the problem with treating them differently? Even if they still got punished, just differently.

catsmate1 · 23rd November 2012, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

While the left wants to regulate all aspects of our lives, they've made a concerted effort to control tools known as guns. The reality is that boy could have killed his sister ANY number of ways: he could have lit her on fire with a box of matches, or used the family station wagon to run her over, or judo chopped her windpipe? What next, are we gonna outlaw karate?? roflmfao

Does this near-hysterical rant have something to do with the subject at hand?

ponderingturtle · 23rd November 2012, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Does this near-hysterical rant have something to do with the subject at hand?

I think it is a poe.

BStrong · 23rd November 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by mike3

What would be the problem with treating them differently? Even if they still got punished, just differently.

If a civilian that happened to find himself in the same difficult situation under similar circumstances and was sentenced to jail, and the LEO was not, I would disagree with that outcome.

The officer as an armed professional has a higher level of culpability in any type of negligent firearms use or misuse.

I attempt to drive that home in every class I've ever instructed to LEO's or civilians - if you are licensed to carry a firearm, you cannot afford to make mistakes wrt firearms that lead to injury or death.

22nd November 2012, 02:49 PM	#243
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,968	Originally Posted by BStrong As terrible as it is for the officer and his family, he shouldn't be treated in prosecution or sentencing any differently than individuals charged and convicted for the same crime. Most jurisdictions have some sort of safe storage or child safe statutes wrt firearms, as they well should, but in most cases I'm familar with in incidents of negligence that results in a fatal the general consensus (as it is here) seems to be that the poor family "has suffered enough" and jail time or fines would just cause further suffering. I'm of the opinion that if the case is as described, the father should serve jail time, if other individuals in that jurisdiction have after being convicted. Professional firearms users have -0- excuses for negligent behavior wrt firearms storage and use. What would be the problem with treating them differently? Even if they still got punished, just differently.
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,968	__________________ “Ego is subversive and devolutionary, truly destructive and terrible; ego is the generator of privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Ego is the fire that burns within the pit of hell, devouring and cosuming everything that enters and leaving utterly nothing behind. Ego is horrible, cruel, and restraining, the darkness of the world, and the doom and bane of man.” – a reaction to that famous Bertrand Russell quote. Last edited by mike3; 22nd November 2012 at 03:04 PM.

23rd November 2012, 02:49 AM	#244
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by Cain While the left wants to regulate all aspects of our lives, they've made a concerted effort to control tools known as guns. The reality is that boy could have killed his sister ANY number of ways: he could have lit her on fire with a box of matches, or used the family station wagon to run her over, or judo chopped her windpipe? What next, are we gonna outlaw karate?? roflmfao Does this near-hysterical rant have something to do with the subject at hand?
	__________________ Yes I gave in and configured an avatar.

23rd November 2012, 05:03 AM	#245
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by catsmate1 Does this near-hysterical rant have something to do with the subject at hand? I think it is a poe.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

22nd November 2012, 10:58 AM	#241
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,656	Originally Posted by anglolawyer Here, we part company. I already posted the latest refinement to their lordships' definition in the UK, which dates back to 2004, not decades. For a start, it is as good as impossible to distinguish 'gross' negligence from routine negligence. Go right ahead and do it. And you are not allowed to shade the dividing line into recklessness btw. I was referring to Canada, not the UK. We have had our crim neg causing bh and crim neg causing death laws on the books for a long time, and we manage it just fine.

22nd November 2012, 12:42 PM	#242
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,599	Originally Posted by LashL I was referring to Canada, not the UK. We have had our crim neg causing bh and crim neg causing death laws on the books for a long time, and we manage it just fine. Well, you must just be better lawyers than us I s'ppose. We get our panties all bunched up (I have decided to adopt this useful expression, recently acquired) all the way up to the House of Lords!

23rd November 2012, 08:49 AM	#246
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	Originally Posted by mike3 What would be the problem with treating them differently? Even if they still got punished, just differently. If a civilian that happened to find himself in the same difficult situation under similar circumstances and was sentenced to jail, and the LEO was not, I would disagree with that outcome. The officer as an armed professional has a higher level of culpability in any type of negligent firearms use or misuse. I attempt to drive that home in every class I've ever instructed to LEO's or civilians - if you are licensed to carry a firearm, you cannot afford to make mistakes wrt firearms that lead to injury or death.