Supreme court restores Calgary man's acquittal for attacking woman while high on magic mushrooms | CBC News

  1. This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here.

  2. He drank 12-14 ounces of vodka and a few beers, but apparently it was the 2.5 g of mushrooms that made him violent. Ok, gotcha.

  3. As someone who has done shrooms on multiple occasions, it’s bullshit that it completely fucks your sense of judgment to the point of “jumping out a window because you think you can fly” or shit like this.

  4. I thought intoxication and resultant duress was your own responsibility. This case will set precedence for others engaging in this behavior. How awful.

  5. IAAL - albeit I do not practice in the realm of criminal or constitutional law, so my understanding of this matter is likely not perfect. I've also only read over the R v Brown case - not the other two that were released alongside.

  6. I’m not a lawyer, have no idea about the technicalities but if I drove home from the pub, causing no harm I would fully expect to be arrested. So why can this asshole do drugs, break into a home and beat the shit out of a woman?

  7. We should make the law such that if you're an adult and take drugs, you have to own the results of any of your actions you take while you're under the influence.

  8. The only resonable solution that's going to come out of this is criminalization of extreme intoxication. You might not be responsible for anything after becoming so intoxicated you can't form mens rea anymore, but you could form the intent to get that drunk, which could be made a crime. You could also see about criminalizing letting someone get that drunk. Call it some kind of negligence.

  9. The wording of the law sucks, and needs to be fixed………to something that would literally be impossible to ever prove.

  10. What it said was that the person who willingly consumes large amounts of alcohol and then violently attacks someone cannot commit a 'guilty act'. They upheld a ruling from the Ontario Court of Appeal that murdering someone was a “morally innocent” act as long as you had consumed sufficient mind-altering substances first. Twist that as you may the consequences are clear. I can consume drugs, murder your entire family, then go home and consume more drugs and when the police come for me plead that I was out of my mind because of all the drugs I've taken. Acquitted! I'm morally innocent!

  11. A lot of the outrage is because in clarifying the law, they have created an injustice. This man is guilty of something, will he be retried?

  12. That is a great news for lawyers all around the country. Parliament should have listened in 1994 when the Supreme Court suggested something that would respect the Charter but the decided to go their own way and here we are.

  13. If this loser's not responsible for his drinking and drunken behavior, who is? He's a drunk and a nasty one at that. Mushrooms didn't make him attack anyone.

  14. Wait serious question, does this mean that if you are constantly intoxicated you are immune to being charged guilty for crimes? It sounds absurd but that's the only takeaway I can see from this

  15. No. You need an expert opinion to use that defense. You also need to be in a state of extreme intoxication which is no small task. The findings of the Supreme Court are that no one should be guilty of something they had no intention of doing in the beginning. Parliament can enact a new crime of "guilty intoxication" if they wish, but they chose not to do so in the past.

  16. No. Read the fucking decision before you comment. Does not apply to cases of alcohol intoxication alone. I am so sick of redditors jerking off the headlines and comments without reading the MATERIAL. Jesus fucking Christ.

  17. This is repulsive. Intoxication should not absolve people of responsibility for their actions. If you're willing to chance what you'll do on drugs or alcohol, the penalties should be the exact same as when you're sober.

  18. I think the precedent is sort of set by consent laws. If I sleep with someone while intoxicated that isn't my responsibility, the other person assaulted me. If I legally can't consent or sign a binding contract while intoxicated, logically I can't be held as accountable for actions while intoxicated. Not saying I agree with this, but it makes sense to some extent.

  19. If it is legal to take hallucinogens and beat a middle aged/elderly woman in her home inflicting permanent life altering damage then why is it illegal for me to drink a 26 of rye and drive home?

  20. 2.5G of mushrooms is very, very little. It is the dose people do at music festivals to see a some colour halos and maybe appreciate music more, fully lucid.

  21. Like, thats not true at all. They're mind altering substances. And no, im not saying he shouldnt be held responsible, but lets not lie that drugs and alcohol cant disinhibit a person leading them to do things they would never consider sober. Or, depending on the drug, cause a psychosis.

  22. Now fair game to blame your voluntary drug use to get off serious crimes. What a joke and embarrassment for our country. The court fails the people again.

  23. What if I committed an act and immediately after took a substance to then say I’m intoxicated? (The drunk driver starts drinking after the accident type of thing).

  24. The burden of proof shifts to the accused when making a positive defence (such as automatism, necessity, duress, or self-defence). The presumption is that a person is capable of forming the required intent to do whatever they did, and it is on them to rebut that presumption on a balance of probabilities. It's not an easy task.

  25. What a joke, are they going to overturn the convictions of everyone who got black-out drunk and got behind the wheel of a car?

  26. Yikes, I’m honestly quite concerned about the precedent that this ruling could set. Who’s to say that some predator won’t be able to blame his assault of some helpless student a party on the fact that he snorted some coke a few minutes prior?

  27. Lets all take some acid and blow, grab a bat and find this dude. If anything happens to him it was the drugs fault.

  28. This is disturbing.. Based on this logic could I not drive drunk, kill a pedestrian, and then claim I am not criminally responsible by using my level of intoxication as a defence? Does this not hypothetically void all impaired driving laws?

  29. What bullshit. You make the decision to drink or do drugs - you know the potential consequences ie. blacking out, alcohol poisoning, making bad decisions. Being drunk is NOT an excuse for this behaviour, and you should 100% be held accountable!!

  30. If an intoxicated individual is not responsible for his/her actions I am responsible for my safety which I take very seriously. The court has blood on its hands.

  31. So supreme court rules against personal agency and responsibility, rewarding bad behaviour, and leaving victims without justice.

  32. I suggest you read the ruling as it’ll clear things up. The law that the SCC struck down violated the Charter and should be re-written.

  33. CONTENT DEACTIVATED "The Supreme Court is weak-minded and panders to weak people and a weak society. How about they grow a pair and start instilling personal accountability in people's minds instead of this "the criminal is the victim too" garbage?"

  34. This is a case of someone who "drank about 12-14 ounces of vodka plus a 'few beers' before attacking Hamnett". For some reason, they didn't mention that in the headline. So I guess we should make alcohol illegal again?

  35. There should be a mechanism for the immediate fast-tracking of amendments to laws that are so unclear they allow guilty people to go Scott free for terrible crimes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin