WWWTT Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Tis so. AND judges all too often try to set the laws rather than administer them.. If the proscribed sentence was deemed inappropriate by his lawyer an appeal would be his next move. The judge should be removed from the bench pending a judicial review. Absolute fabrication! It is the judges responsibility to ensure the constitution(highest laws in Canada) is always upheld buddy! Harper next election should get fired for blatantly ignoring the constitution,plane and simple! He is wasting tax payers dollars like a freekin drunk,this country has never seen anything like this wastefull government in our history! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Told you so! I've bein predicting this event(and many more to come) for some time now. Every freekin judge is going to be contemplating the same thing with the unusual mandatory sentences.And many more of these rulings will become the norm! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Argus Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 What part of the constitution did the judge set? As far as I knew, the Charter existed before this judge mentioned it in her ruling. The interesting part about Judge-made law is that the Constitution is whatever the judge says it is. Therefore, they can always use the Constitution to support any argument on any subject they care to make. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 The interesting part about Judge-made law is that the Constitution is whatever the judge says it is. Actually, that isn't true. They have to back up what they say with evidence. Quote
Argus Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Actually, that isn't true. They have to back up what they say with evidence. No, actually, they don't. Judges don't offer up evidence. They offer up opinions. That's why one judge can say something is unconstitutional and another judge can say it isn't. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 No, actually, they don't. Judges don't offer up evidence. They offer up opinions. That's why one judge can say something is unconstitutional and another judge can say it isn't. Actually no, again, you're wrong. Judges have to explain the basis of decisions, especially major ones, and those decisions can be overturned at a higher level, or laws can be changed if parliaments don't like something. Quote
dre Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Told you so! I've bein predicting this event(and many more to come) for some time now. Every freekin judge is going to be contemplating the same thing with the unusual mandatory sentences.And many more of these rulings will become the norm! WWWTT I think we are going to see the system rebel against these laws to an even greater extent. Not just the courts either but every level from the arresting officer, to the prosecutor and on up the chain. The problem is that theres a lot of normal reasonable people in the system. And the reality is that a lot of these cases get plead out anyways and still more never go to trial in the first place. Its pretty easy for the legal system to shut down this kind of idiocy out of Ottawa. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Actually no, again, you're wrong. Judges have to explain the basis of decisions, especially major ones, and those decisions can be overturned at a higher level, or laws can be changed if parliaments don't like something. Isn't that another way of saying what I just said? They make a decision, which is their opinion, and some higher judge can have a different opinion, and the judge above him can have a different opinion than they do. That's all it is: opinion. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 I think we are going to see the system rebel against these laws to an even greater extent. Not just the courts either but every level from the arresting officer, to the prosecutor and on up the chain. The problem is that theres a lot of normal reasonable people in the system. And the reality is that a lot of these cases get plead out anyways and still more never go to trial in the first place. Its pretty easy for the legal system to shut down this kind of idiocy out of Ottawa. Then why was this case brought to trial? Why was he even charged, and why wasn't it pled out? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Isn't that another way of saying what I just said? No. The opinion that they give has to be backed up by some kind of evidence. Also, the higher levels have more than one judge, meaning that it definitely isn't just about how someone feels. Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 No. The opinion that they give has to be backed up by some kind of evidence. Also, the higher levels have more than one judge, meaning that it definitely isn't just about how someone feels. I've told you before that there is no evidence. Judges don't interpret the Charter based on 'evidence' of any kind. If you disagree please point out the 'evidence' used in the case under discussion. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I've told you before that there is no evidence. And I've told you you're wrong. If they're going to interpret the charter in a certain why, they have o explain why, backed up by precedent or written material. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) I admittedly don’t know all the facts of the case, but on the surface, he probably doesn’t even deserve jail time, but, If a licensed gun owner’s home was broken into and an improperly stored handgun stolen, then used to commit a murder, should the licensed gun owner be charged? If there's no evidence of his/her gun locker being broken into, then absolutely they should be charged. Edited February 17, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 So legal guy gets improper storage, but the kid fooling around making pictures for Facebook gets nothing?He didn't get nothing. He was convicted and sentenced. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 If there's no evidence of his/her gun locker being broken into, then absolutely they should be charged. For safe storage laws…….exactly, and they would be……So why shouldn’t a this guy handling an illegal handgun? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 He didn't get nothing. He was convicted and sentenced. Sentenced to what? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Absolute fabrication! It is the judges responsibility to ensure the constitution(highest laws in Canada) is always upheld buddy! Harper next election should get fired for blatantly ignoring the constitution,plane and simple! He is wasting tax payers dollars like a freekin drunk,this country has never seen anything like this wastefull government in our history! WWWTT Sidebar: It's hilarious when you get worked up because you throw a bunch of "buddy" and "freekin" into your posts. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Sentenced to what? I'm not really sure what you were asking in the reply prior to this. In any case, "Judge Malloy gave Mr. Smickle a one-year conditional sentence to be served under house arrest." So he was convicted of a crime and sentenced. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I'm not really sure what you were asking in the reply prior to this. In any case, "Judge Malloy gave Mr. Smickle a one-year conditional sentence to be served under house arrest." So he was convicted of a crime and sentenced. So with that precedent set, it should reasonable to assume that a legal owner caught with a loaded handgun in his home, should just get a fine and/or community service right? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 So with that precedent set, it should reasonable to assume that a legal owner caught with a loaded handgun in his home, should just get a fine and/or community service right? I'm not quite sure you understand how judicial reasoning works. The answer to your question is "it depends." Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I'm not quite sure you understand how judicial reasoning works. The answer to your question is "it depends." Oh, I do understand judicial reasoning, and if a person is caught with an illegal, loaded handgun, there are certainly more laws being broken then the legal owner with a loaded handgun……..One is obviously a “lesser crime” and the young fellow got out with house arrest……fair enough, as far as I know, he wasn’t threatening or hurting anyone, so in my opinion, the punishment seems to fit the “crime”. Now lets say, as I’m sitting here typing this response to you, I have a holstered, loaded, handgun around my waist (I don’t) and my nosy next door neighbour spots this through the window and calls the police……After the lower mainland RCMP ERT busts down my door, confiscates all my firearms, handcuffs me in front of my wife and children, then takes me away in the back seat of a Buffalo Cab, what will the Crown charge me with? If and when I’m convicted, what will I be sentenced to? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) I shouldn't humour your fabricated examples. The answer is it depends. The circumstances of the case are what ought to determine the sentence. Someone can do the same thing, ie, have a loaded gun improperly stored in their home, and the circumstances of each situation can vary dramatically. The only point that I'm making is that mandatory minimums are a one-size-fits-all measure, which does not and cannot take into account the facts particular to each incident. The only way that can be done is through a judge, who then uses a combination his/her reasoning, past precedent, and the legal code (including the Charter) to render a decision. Since I'm not a judge and I don't have all of the information particular to your hypothesized case, there's no reason for me to presume what a judge would do, nor would it even be possible. I can make assumptions, which are pointless, but here they are anyway. My assumption would be that the cops probably wouldn't kick down your door nor charge you, if you haven't had any prior contact with them. In all likelihood, if they did charge you, the prosecutor would probably drop the case and just tell you to keep your guns locked up properly in the future. If it went further than that, you would probably get a suspended sentence and have your firearms license revoked for a year or so. All of that is speculative. Who knows really. Having said all of that, my point remains that it ought to be up to a judge to hear the facts of each particular incident and render a decision thusly. Parliament can't possibly foresee ever circumstance. I would much rather know that everyone is going to get a fair hearing and that the sentencing is going to be based on what actually happened, not some one-size-fits-all predetermined incarceration that a bunch of politicians in Ottawa created to pander to their base. Edited February 17, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Guest Peeves Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Having said all of that, my point remains that it ought to be up to a judge to hear the facts of each particular incident and render a decision thusly. Parliament can't possibly foresee ever circumstance. I would much rather know that everyone is going to get a fair hearing and that the sentencing is going to be based on what actually happened, not some one-size-fits-all predetermined incarceration that a bunch of politicians in Ottawa created to pander to their base. That's what initiated the need for minimum maximum sentencing. Judges were all over the place on sentencing. Judges were taking liberties with the laws. Judges were rewriting laws as they went. Judges are notorious for applying their own bias and opinion when they should be sticking to the law. The judges made the mess and THEIR chickens are now coming home to roost and they don't like to be told WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO< Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 The answer is it depends. The circumstances of the case are what ought to determine the sentence. Someone can do the same thing, ie, have a loaded gun improperly stored in their home, and the circumstances of each situation can vary dramatically. The only point that I'm making is that mandatory minimums are a one-size-fits-all measure, which does not and cannot take into account the facts particular to each incident. The only way that can be done is through a judge, who then uses a combination his/her reasoning, past precedent, and the legal code (including the Charter) to render a decision. Since I'm not a judge and I don't have all of the information particular to your hypothesized case, there's no reason for me to presume what a judge would do, nor would it even be possible. Couldn't agree more. And isn't that why they're called "Judges"? Quote
WWWTT Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Judges were rewriting laws as they went. Yes this is absolutely true!And judges are still doing this and will continue aswell! And it is completely neccessary for judges to do so because there are so many different scenarios and different possible outcomes,influence,opinion etc,etc. When politicians come up with laws and debate them,amend and finaly pass (or reject) laws,it is impossible to clearly see into the future in regards to how these new laws or amendmants will effect everyone.This is why it is important to have open debates in the house of commons! Time and practical working practise are the ultimate tests and judges are crucial in this process! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.