[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=22832" target="_blank">Men charged in Mountie murders draw support</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/18-law--order" target="_blank">Law & Order</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-07-12 13:48:05
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[Heavy_Metal]

Our whole world has just exploded," Shawn Hennessey's grandfather said outside court before the hearing. mmmm now times it by 4 and you'll know how those RCMP family members went and are going through

[misfit]

Heavy_Metal, well said.
The family members are scared for life!

[toothpick]

Charged != convicted.

The press should only be able to publish the name and photo of a person once they have been convicted.

If they are guilty, let the court find them guilty.
If they are not, let the court find them not.

[Yogi]

We don't even know what the 'charges' are yet and you guys are already 'throwing the rope over the tree limb'!

Did they knowingly furnish the firearms?

Did they help Rozco set-up the ambush?

Did Rozco tell them what his plans were and they willingly helped him carry out his plan?

Because they were purportedly cohorts of rozco doesn't necessarily make them guilty of anything.

Perhaps rozco phoned them and said, 'Hey, my truck broke down and I need a ride home', or something to that effect.

We just don't know. Too many questions and no answers. Or can one of you guys answer any or all of these questions?

Obviously, the Crown has 'something' that they consider significant or they wouldn't be holding the 'accused' in jail.

At this point though, that is just what the accused are....'accused'!

If in fact these two individuals are convicted of actually helping rozco carry out his plan, then by all means, tie the rope to my 'saddle horn' and I would be proud to do the honors.

And I say this, knowing the father of one of the accused!

[icekarma2752]

i'm thinking..given their ages..perhaps they were customers/partners in his pot-growing deal...partners in crime..dont know if that qualifies for 1st degree murder charges..i dont even think providing him with rifle would qualify unless he specifies what hes going to do

[Heavy_Metal]

Yogi Yogi:

8O We don't even know what the 'charges' are yet and you guys are already 'throwing the rope over the tree limb'!

Did they knowingly furnish the firearms?

Did they help Rozco set-up the ambush?

Did Rozco tell them what his plans were and they willingly helped him carry out his plan?

Because they were purportedly cohorts of rozco doesn't necessarily make them guilty of anything.

Perhaps rozco phoned them and said, 'Hey, my truck broke down and I need a ride home', or something to that effect.

We just don't know. Too many questions and no answers. Or can one of you guys answer any or all of these questions?

Obviously, the Crown has 'something' that they consider significant or they wouldn't be holding the 'accused' in jail.

At this point though, that is just what the accused are....'accused'!

If in fact these two individuals are convicted of actually helping rozco carry out his plan, then by all means, tie the rope to my 'saddle horn' and I would be proud to do the honors.

And I say this, knowing the father of one of the accused!

Parties to Offence as per Canadian Criminal Code:

Section 21(1): every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it
I don't think this is a witch hunt, but i don't know the whole story. good on you for keeping an open mind that these kids might have had something to do with the four deaths.

[BartSimpson]

I know very little of this particular story but I will weigh in that the terms arrested, jailed, and indicted and sometimes even convicted do not necessarily mean that someone is guilty.

[BartSimpson]

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

Parties to Offence as per Canadian Criminal Code:

Section 21(1): every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it
I don't think this is a witch hunt, but i don't know the whole story. good on you for keeping an open mind that these kids might have had something to do with the four deaths.

If I don't do something and that aids the person who committed a crime then I'm guilty of a crime?

Then the RCMP is guilty of a crime for not stopping the blockades?

[Hyack]

Welcome to the Canadian judicial system!

[BartSimpson]

Hyack Hyack:

Welcome to the Canadian judicial system!

I'm not so sure it's any better or worse than ours.

[Hyack]

Ya wanna flip on it?

[Heavy_Metal]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

Parties to Offence as per Canadian Criminal Code:

Section 21(1): every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it
I don't think this is a witch hunt, but i don't know the whole story. good on you for keeping an open mind that these kids might have had something to do with the four deaths.

If I don't do something and that aids the person who committed a crime then I'm guilty of a crime?

Then the RCMP is guilty of a crime for not stopping the blockades?

the person has to have the mens rea (guilty mind) to be guilty of an offence, so therefore the person to be a party to an offence must know what the person is going to do and then omit to tell anyone.

if there is no mens rea there is no crime, this is what the trial will find out, if there was mens rea to his actus reus and therefore a crime comitted

[icekarma2752]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hyack Hyack:

Welcome to the Canadian judicial system!

I'm not so sure it's any better or worse than ours.

totally worse than yours