I wish, therefore I am

[GenesisGT]

For the Crown to charge and receive a conviction in reference to uttering a threat, they need to have more then just a comment such as someone wishing harm to some else. Based on what has been reported Stam said more then "gee I wish all cops were dead", and with counsel from a lawyer, even he must have believed that the evidence meet the proof of offence and that going to trial would have brought results worse then pleading guilty and dealing on what the punishment would be.

Proof of Offence

The crown should establish the following:

identity of accused
date and time of incident
jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
the accused uttered words;
that words conveyed a threat to:
cause death or serious bodily harm to a person,
burn, destroy or damage real property; or
kill, poison, or injure an animal that is the property of any person.
the accused demeanour as the words were being said;
the words were meant to be taken seriously as a threat
the method by which threat was conveyed;
a person received the threat;
motivation for threat;
the effect the words had on the recipient.

[Daspoot]

i read it, and i see that he indeed pled guilty, but that does not mean an automatic conviction. there has to be some sort of evidence, proof. what we are given is, via the 'agreed statement of facts', is that stam 'wished' police were killed. hardly threatening, and surely one would think not criminal.

even if we consider what stam was alleged to have said


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... -1.2760745

i would think that still would not be criminal.

You could always challenge this ruling by doing your own vague threatening of the police and then not plead guilty and see what the courts rule. I would find it very interesting to how it all turns out.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

hmmm... what stram agreed to have said seems to meet the requirements of 'canadian' so called 'law'.

Uttering threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
Marginal note:Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Marginal note:Idem

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... 264.1.html

but so would so very many comments here and everywhere one looks it would seem in public conversations. it is hard to believe so many are criminals. certainly no need for me to join the 'challenge' as you put it.

your own choice though

by Daspoot » Today, 7:30 pm
You could always challenge this ruling by doing your own vague threatening of the police and then not plead guilty and see what the courts rule. I would find it very interesting to how it all turns out.

seems to meet the criteria for this so called 'law'

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Marginal note:Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
Marginal note:Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Marginal note:Definitions

(7) In this section,
“communicating”
« communiquer »
“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

“identifiable group”
« groupe identifiable »
“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;

“public place”
« endroit public »
“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

“statements”
« déclarations »
“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... n-319.html

how very adventurous of you. how would suggest i or we should proceed now?

[Fancy]

Not impressed. You perceive threats made on this forum but did you report them?

[A_Britishcolumbian]

of course not, but for reasons we are prohibited from discussing here.

simply enough though, i do not agree with the so called 'law', and i believe any possible 'threat' should remain visible for all to see. as well i cannot see how antagonizing the person doing the threatening would do any good, rather it would seem more likely to increase potential for harm.

mr. stam seems to have talked to the wrong people. people that decided to watch him and judge him on their own, they certainly seem to have wanted mr. stam to be punished for his words. but apparently not for his alleged 'threat', rather his words of support for someone else.

MONCTON, N.B. - A New Brunswick man who threatened during a conversation at a farmer's market in May to kill police officers was sentenced Tuesday in Moncton to a nine-month conditional sentence.

Jasper John Stam posted comments about a couple of weeks later that sympathized with the actions of a man later convicted of murdering three RCMP officers.

It was those comments that led the farmer's market vendor and his girlfriend who heard the threat to report them to police, the Crown said.

Judge Anne Dugas-Horsman of the provincial court agreed with a joint submission from the Crown and defence that Stam, 24, should serve the first three months of his sentence under house arrest and the remaining time on probation.

Stam pleaded guilty June 18 to uttering the threat. Court heard Tuesday that Stam said he would kill police and he wished them dead.

His sentence includes a condition that Stam have no contact with Justin Bourque, who will be sentenced next month for the fatal shootings of the three Mounties on June 4.

Stam, who was surrounded by family members in court, declined comment at sentencing and outside court.

Crown lawyer Mario Cormier presented an agreed statement of facts in court saying that Bourque and Stam had known each other for about 14 years, but they weren't close friends or confidantes.

"They were acquaintances, they knew each other," Cormier said.

He also said that Stam had similar "anti-police and anti-establishment views" as Bourque.

He said Stam's threat occurred at the Dieppe farmer's market at some point between May 10 and May 18, after Stam joined in a conversation between a vendor and the vendor's girlfriend.

Cormier said Stam's comments were reported to the RCMP after the fatal shootings of constables Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, Douglas James Larche and Dave Joseph Ross on June 4. Stam was arrested and charged four days later.

"(The complainants) saw some disturbing comments on his Facebook and this is what led them to make the complaint to the RCMP after the fact," said the Crown lawyer.

He said the postings were sympathetic to Bourque and "what had occurred on June 4." He said they were offensive but didn't specify in court what they said.

Defence lawyer Jean Cormier said outside court that he felt the threat likely never would have been reported if the shootings hadn't occurred and if Stam hadn't posted them on social media.

"The whole traumatic experience of the City of Moncton ... certainly was a factor here," he said of the sentence.

The defence lawyer said Stam and Bourque were friends as boys, but the relationship had lapsed and the last time Stam saw Bourque was briefly at a wedding in February.

He said his client hadn't known Bourque as a violent person and had rushed to his defence on social media during the shootings.

"His initial reaction after the events was to be supportive of a former friend. That reaction was unfortunate in this instance but can be understood," said the defence counsel.

"Sometimes you support friends who shouldn't be supported."

Cormier said his client is a law-abiding citizen who is not violent, has no interest in firearms and never had broke the law before.

The judge noted Stam had no prior record, had spent 11 days in custody and holds down a steady job.

"His pre-sentence report shows a supportive family and a strong work ethic ... which makes it all the more difficult to explain such violent words towards those in authority," Dugas-Horsman said.

During his house arrest, Stam will be allowed to leave home for work, medical appointments and religious ceremonies.

By Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press

http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/484141 ... -officers/

[Fancy]

Everyone concerned appeared to grasp the concept of the law and acted accordingly.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

so you feel that everyone that threatens death here in this forum to someone or some entity deserves a 9 month or similar sentence as well as being restricted from the internet and such?

[Fancy]

Uttering threats to kill someone goes beyond bullying.

[Daspoot]

<snipped out all the blah blah blah>

how very adventurous of you. how would suggest i or we should proceed now?

Nine One One, it's your only real choice. They can demand Castanet turn over my IP address and I can easily be identified from that. Unless I am using a proxy IP address or routing my posts through other countries websites with bogus IP addresses, which I'm not because I have nothing to fear.

I'm not worried for a few other reasons though, your understanding of the law is very twisted and incorrect in so many ways that everybody seems to see it clearly except you. And I know you'd rather applaud an officer being punished, hurt or killed than to enlist one to right the grievous wrong I perpetrated upon you in my earlier post.

[goatboy]

Mens rea people. Guilty mind.

That's the difference between this guy and someone spouting off on a Forum.

[cutter7]

I've said it before , don't talk to investigators and don't trust anyone in uniform.. they are not there because things are good.

When questioned, the appropriate response ( i learned this from police lying on stand) is, I do not recall.

[Hassel99]

so you feel that everyone that threatens death here in this forum to someone or some entity deserves a 9 month or similar sentence as well as being restricted from the internet and such?

I have never seen anyone threaten death on this forum, if they do it should be handled in the appropriate manner.

[Bsuds]

so you feel that everyone that threatens death here in this forum to someone or some entity deserves a 9 month or similar sentence as well as being restricted from the internet and such?

I have never seen anyone threaten death on this forum, if they do it should be handled in the appropriate manner.

It's against the rules and could get you banned.

A_B...why don't you give it a try?

[FreeRights]

I've said it before , don't talk to investigators and don't trust anyone in uniform.. they are not there because things are good.

When questioned, the appropriate response ( i learned this from police lying on stand) is, I do not recall.

So you're obviously more interested in covering your backside than actually respecting and allowing those who investigate criminal matters to do so. Seriously, you're suggesting that everyone decline cooperation with investigators for what reason? Wouldn't it be easier to not be the subject of an investigation?