Author Topic: A Case for Negilgence  (Read 3229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,227
A Case for Negilgence
« on: August 24, 2004, 23:28:02 »
I'd hazard a guess that some could find the Liberals in a state of mens rea.

Care to elaborate?
Living the lean life

Offline DJL

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 135
Re: Loss of the 280s
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2004, 23:40:12 »
Sure, if Canadians die, are injured or suffer damage to propertiy, and if it could be proven that the "event" likely could have been prevented if not for government neglect of the forces, the government would be guilty of negligence, and as they say Ignorance is no defence.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,227
Re: Loss of the 280s
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2004, 23:52:57 »
Ahhh .. negligence. This imports the concept of foreseeability in the mind of the reasonable person of sound prudent mind. Does that sound like a liberal to you? Mens rea is a criminal concept. You had me excited there for a minute, i.e. an injured citizen or grieving widow pushing to have the MND or PM prosecuted as a war criminal through their actions, or omissions when they ought to have known better.     As you say, ignorance is no defence when you're in political charge, for example as Mr. Milosevic is about to find out.
Living the lean life

Offline DJL

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 135
Re: Loss of the 280s
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2004, 00:09:51 »
Quote
Ahhh .. negligence. This imports the concept of foreseeability in the mind of the average person of sound prudent mind. Does that sound like a liberal to you? Mens rea is a criminal concept. You had me excited there for a minute, i.e. an injured citizen or grieving widow pushing to have the MND or PM prosecuted as a war criminal through their actions, or omissions when they ought to have known better.   As you say, ignorance is no defence when you're in political charge, for example as Mr. Milosevic is about to find out.

Nevermind the Tories, but if you add the recommendations of the Senate reports, independent "think tanks"/research groups and other nation's governments, I don't see how the Liberals neglect towards the forces, and by proxy the defence of the Canadian people, could be proven to be anything other then criminal.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,227
Re: Loss of the 280s
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2004, 00:29:56 »
The Conservatives have their own track record on defence, having served Regs under them, IMO they try to suck and blow at the same time. But fair enough, "never mind" them. I would prefer parliament set defence policy, not just one party. Reports etc. don't make the liberals criminals for their defence antics, but perhaps you are right in rather cunning way.   In the event of an unfortunate incident, say for example the "volley fire" noted above by Ex-D, certainly the decisions taken could be used in making out a case of wilfull blindness or wilfull disregard in relation to the forseeability of a criminal event. That is called subjective mens rea, a much different animal and one which presents all sorts of opportunities as well as defences. Only people to see any justice at all would be lawyers through billing hours etc.. Irregardless, "promotion" for you!!  
Living the lean life

Offline DJL

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 135
Re: Loss of the 280s
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2004, 00:41:06 »
I thought I'd throw this into the mix:

Quote
Criminal Negligence
 
Criminal negligence
 219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
 
Definition of "duty"
 (2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.

 

Now is it not the "duty" of the Head of Government to see that Canadian citizens are protected? So if PM PM's neglects the safety of the before mentioned CPF, wouldn't he be criminally negligent?  



« Last Edit: August 25, 2004, 00:44:05 by DJL »

CF104Starfighter

  • Guest
Re: Loss of the 280s
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2004, 02:24:47 »
If I'm not mistaken (Which I'm not) we just elected a criminally negligent government in June.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,227
Re: A Case for Negilgence
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2004, 11:30:54 »
No, it's Parliament's duty. Forget the criminal stuff, it won't work. The post from which this board came laid out a test for interlocutory injunction, a potential administrative law remedy in the offing, so to speak, perhaps forcing the MND to shape up and nothing more, if thats even required.  So is there negligence here? No, not yet because there is no specific triggering event, nothing has happened yet so no harm suffered, and case to be made out [yet] that the potential harm outweighs the consequences. Even if there was, who would be negligent? The MND or Parliament, the VCDS, the TF Commander, or the poor friggin' NESOP who failed to warn in time to turn the ships around? Guess which direction **** flows. They all have a duty, so where would it stop?

A member on this site has a motto Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail. Is this not exactly what is going on when force and capability planning is assumed to be under the sole prerogative of the MND?           
Living the lean life

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,219
Re: A Case for Negilgence
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2004, 22:24:08 »
Am I missing something here.  I don't see Ex-Ds post.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 253,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,015
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: A Case for Negilgence
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2004, 22:32:41 »
The thread got split, his post was probably before that.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.