Klappan Blockade -Defense fund for Criminal Charges Against Hunter

[AgSilver]

This is totally down to politics.

Last year I saw some guy reselling a used lift ticket in the car park at the local ski hill. There are signs all over saying it's an offence with a 200$ fine. He got caught by the parking attendant and tried to drive off. The parking attendant tried to block his car but he drove off anyway, pushing the attendant backwards 10 metres until he got out of the way. Exactly the same sort of vehicle confrontation as your case but I believe the attendant had a legal right to stop the driver and collect the fine.

The police already had a roadblock at the bottom of the hill and stopped the driver.I left my contact details with them as I had witnessed the confrontation. West Van police never called me to make a statement or give evidence in court, I can only assume they never pressed assault or any other charges.

There's probably something in there about a private enterprise having no authority to determine what an "offence" is or issue fines (see various discussions around parking lot "fines")...however, they don't have to let him back on the mountain, that's for sure....at least unless the "right to roam" act passes!

Even more interesting is where Micks formal RCMP complaint is dealt with.

Now THAT might set a real precedent. Ultimately the biggest win here could be the RCMP directed to enforce court injunctions and be held in contempt if they don't. I have no idea if that is likely but I would love to see something like that.

Who is usually tasked with enforcing injunctions? Is it the police? I would have thought sheriffs, but I honestly don't know. I guess that when it's an injunction is breaching a court order and therefore criminal'ish...I wonder. Would have to look that up.

Whether or not the blockade was legal is not the issue. Whether or not the police did their job after the injunction is not the issue. There are only two issue in this case: Did he commit an assault by using a weapon, and did he, in any manner, utter or convey threats to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property? That's it.

This won't set a precedent for anything. Keep in mind that the injunction was granted 10 days AFTER this incident.

The video doesn't make it seem like he did those things, does it? Assault on the most technical and simple levels...yes, probably...although there's an argument that by standing in front of his truck, consent was implied...? Probably not, though.

Threats? I wonder what the caselaw is on what is on what is considered a threat....is "I would do if I had to" really a threat?

[hogzotic]

I agree , the RCMP is a great police force. I think the senior managers of the Dease Lake detachment are playing the politics and that is what the problem is. I am confident the guys/gals in harness on the street are frustrated they can't deal with the blockade. I just heard from a cop I have known for a while who said they just got back from a fn policing conference and the word was "hands off" on the natives as they always lose in the press. Those kind of comments I find extremely frustrating.

[1899]

Who is usually tasked with enforcing injunctions? Is it the police? I would have thought sheriffs, but I honestly don't know. I guess that when it's an injunction is breaching a court order and therefore criminal'ish...I wonder. Would have to look that up.



The video doesn't make it seem like he did those things, does it? Assault on the most technical and simple levels...yes, probably...although there's an argument that by standing in front of his truck, consent was implied...? Probably not, though.

Threats? I wonder what the caselaw is on what is on what is considered a threat....is "I would do if I had to" really a threat?

I suspect the video is not the only evidence.

What is a threat?

To determine whether spoken or written words constitute a threat to cause serious bodily harm ‑‑ an issue of law and not of fact ‑‑ they must be looked at in the context in which they were spoken or written, in light of the person to whom they were addressed and the circumstances in which they were uttered. They should be viewed in an objective way and the meaning attributed to the words should be that which a reasonable person would give to them.

plus

On a charge of uttering threats, the actus reus is the uttering of threatening words. Whether the words uttered constitute a threat, must be viewed objectively and involves a determination as to whether or not a reasonable person would consider the words uttered as being threatening. They are to be reviewed in light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, the manner in which they were spoken, and the person to whom they were addressed (see R. v. McCraw, 1991 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72 at 82-83, and R. v. Clemente, 1994 CanLII 49 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758 at 763).

In addition, and as was stated in Clemente, at p. 763, it is not a necessary element of the offence that the intended victim be aware of the threat. Furthermore, “[t]he threat need not be carried out; the offence is completed when the threat is made” (see McCraw, at p. 81).

As to the mens rea, the trial judge must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence “knowingly.” Therefore, because of the inclusion of the word “knowingly,” the mens rea carries a subjective intent component. It is not enough to merely utter the words which constitute the threat. The accused must utter the words with the intent that the threat be taken seriously or to intimidate. It does not matter whether the accused meant to carry out the threat. As a result, the trial judge must be satisfied that the accused meant that the words uttered would be taken seriously or would intimidate the complainant (see McCraw, at pp. 81-82; R. v. K.W.B. (1993), 85 Man.R. (2d) 220 (C.A.); and Clemente,at pp. 762-63).

[1899]

Even more interesting is where Micks formal RCMP complaint is dealt with.

Now THAT might set a real precedent. Ultimately the biggest win here could be the RCMP directed to enforce court injunctions and be held in contempt if they don't. I have no idea if that is likely but I would love to see something like that.

GH - the injunction was heard and granted 10 days AFTER the incident which led to Mick being charged.

[BgBlkDg]

Friends, now retired have told me this for years and the frustration was/is very debilitating.

I was with the Alberta FS and had an opportunity to become a BC CO, back in the early '90s. I looked at the whole aboriginal mess in BC and AB and choose to not accept and then retired from the AFS. I was tired of these politics and the stress caused me hypertension even in my 40s......

The future looks kinda bleak for we average citizen hunters, IMO.

[REMINGTON JIM]

I would prefer that you did not quote me as saying what are actually RJ's comments.

I do not think that all RCMP officers are "goofs" and I worked with scores of them, many are brave, decent and honourable folks and I respect them.

The BC Provincial Police were no better and would also respond to Christy and her kind........an improvement?

Dewey- RE Read - I did not call the RCMP officers GOOFs - i called there Bosses the " POLITICIANs " out of Ottawa that CONTROL the RCMP Goofs ! and Christy will have to do for a while yet as the NDP would DESTROY things taking sides with the FNs in this prov ! jmo RJ

[tuner]

GH - the injunction was heard and granted 10 days AFTER the incident which led to Mick being charged.

If the injunction was granted, does it not affirm that the roadblock is,and more importantly WAS illegal?
Would it not have retroactive force? Just wondering.

[1899]

If the injunction was granted, does it not affirm that the roadblock is,and more importantly WAS illegal?
Would it not have retroactive force? Just wondering.

No. And even if it did, it would still not permit an individual to break the law. You can't say, "well they are breaking the law, so I can too".

Two completely separate issues.

[rzycio]

$50 coming your way EMT password is Legaldefense

[hogzotic]

Thanks rzycio appreciate the support

Mick McKee
Hd09hogrider@Gmail