Gay Bashing Victim Guilty Of Assault For Defending Himself

[rawTOP]

WTF is up in Ontario? Look at this guy's face and tell me how in the hell he could be the one who's forced to plead guilty for assault? The guy (Jake Raynard) needed reconstructive surgery to fix his face he was beaten so badly...

Yet he had to plead guilty to assault for kicking his attacker. Why in the hell didn't he go to jury on this one? I can't imagine anyone finding him guilty... I mean even if he over reacted, it was heat of the moment and none of it would have happened if he hadn't been attacked.

Read more...

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/ontario-gaybashing-victim-pleads-guilty.html

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Thunder_Bay_gaybashing_victim_pleads_guilty_to_assault-8694.aspx

[Guest Boxir55]

Yeah, here in the UK you need to be careful. You can only use just enough force to defend yourself. I am lucky never been attacked or had a violent sex partner.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Boxir55

[cmmolthr]

The picture speaks for itself....this is *outrageous*.....there should be mass demonstrations outside their provincial capital over this one

[TonyRedux]

Canada is a Commonwealth country, where the right of Authority to crush you is ultimately royal/divine. In that model, the Government very jealously guards its right to be the only "legitimate" source of violence.

the American system fully rejected this theory from our Revolution on...which is why both the American electorate and the US Supreme Court have thoroughly rejected the ultimate claims of Gun Control theorists. self-defense is a basic and inalienable right...and it very much includes the inherent human right to keep and bear arms.

Kick him? He should have shot him. Glad I live in America, because even though NYC is really no better in this matter, that is likely to change over the next few years of emerging litigation now that the SCOTUS has handed down the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions .

Edited January 15, 2012 by Hotload84

[cmmolthr]

Very well said.....there is a reason that was placed into our constitution.....Our forefathers had some amazing foresight!!

[TonyRedux]

Very well said.....there is a reason that was placed into our constitution.....Our forefathers had some amazing foresight!!

i remain astonished at how easily people of demonstrably lesser intelligence and wisdom than the Founders have the temerity to declare the US Constitution irrelevant because it was written centuries ago.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Hotload84

[cmmolthr]

Exactly!!! It's just as relevant today as it was back then.

[Jimmy1212]

As an Ontarian, I recommend you guys get down off your high horses and learn the real story before trashing the Canadian legal system--you know, the one that's based on the exact same common law as yours. Raynard allegedly responded to verbal taunts with physical violence. He was drunk and attacked teenagers with a brick for fucks sake. Also his plea bargain did take into account the harassment he received prior to losing his cool. He received an absolute discharge, meaning that if he stays out of trouble for a year, the whole thing will be expunged from his record.

From a more balanced account:

"Raynard himself has admitted, 'I may have exceeded some bounds. I’m a little bit in shock that I reacted that way. I’m not a violent person. There was alcohol and flared tempers. I have feelings of massive regret. It’s something that I’m dealing with on a daily basis.'"

[TonyRedux]

As an Ontarian, I recommend you guys get down off your high horses and learn the real story before trashing the Canadian legal system--you know, the one that's based on the exact same common law as yours. Raynard allegedly responded to verbal taunts with physical violence. He was drunk and attacked teenagers with a brick for fucks sake. Also his plea bargain did take into account the harassment he received prior to losing his cool. He received an absolute discharge, meaning that if he stays out of trouble for a year, the whole thing will be expunged from his record.

From a more balanced account:

"Raynard himself has admitted, 'I may have exceeded some bounds. I’m a little bit in shock that I reacted that way. I’m not a violent person. There was alcohol and flared tempers. I have feelings of massive regret. It’s something that I’m dealing with on a daily basis.'"

my high horse is fine and true, no need to get off at all. u neglected to include a link from ur "more balanced account", but such is the nature of internet argument about news stories...sources vary in reliability. what is NOT in doubt is the larger point about how Commonwealth nations disregard self-defense and self-armament for the average citizen in favor of agents of Government AND whatever criminals n reprobates that choose to ignore Government authority. that is a social theory that has no purchase amongst most Americans...and the attempt by The Few to foist that idea upon The Many is in severe retreat.

Thank God.

[rawTOP]

US law isn't based on Common Law - informed by it, but our system is generally different. In the US people aren't accountable for what they do when they're under "extreme emotional distress" (like when they're in the middle of getting beaten). No one here wants to be assaulted, so we give a pass to people who are defending themselves - even if they go a bit too far.

[TonyRedux]

US law isn't based on Common Law - informed by it, but our system is generally different. In the US people aren't accountable for what they do when they're under "extreme emotional distress" (like when they're in the middle of getting beaten). No one here wants to be assaulted, so we give a pass to people who are defending themselves - even if they go a bit too far.

overall this is correct, thank God, but at one point states like Massachusetts had Commonwealth-style laws about self-defense...such as the horrifically absurd requirement that someone experiencing armed home invasion was legally required to be able to prove that they were cornered and had no other room to escape to before using violence against the invader. thankfully that dark comedy has long been repealed in Mass., but it serves as a reminder of where such legal attitudes about self-defense eventually lead. my impression is that Great Britain regularly prosecutes home dwellers for attacking burglars, and homeowners who attack "squatters".

in the USA, "squatting" typically means taking residence in an abandoned home or other structure...however in Great Britain apparently there is an epidemic of people burglarizing homes, registering themselves with the local jurisdiction as residents, and then enjoying legal protection from attack or even eviction when the RIGHTFUL resident returns!

that sort of government idiocy is in retreat in the USA, thankfully...but what sucks is that the mere existence of it elsewhere serves as a bogeyman for the US right wing political element.

[Guest Matias47]

Canada is a Commonwealth country, where the right of Authority to crush you is ultimately royal/divine. In that model, the Government very jealously guards its right to be the only "legitimate" source of violence.

the American system fully rejected this theory from our Revolution on...which is why both the American electorate and the US Supreme Court have thoroughly rejected the ultimate claims of Gun Control theorists. self-defense is a basic and inalienable right...and it very much includes the inherent human right to keep and bear arms.

Kick him? He should have shot him. Glad I live in America, because even though NYC is really no better in this matter, that is likely to change over the next few years of emerging litigation now that the SCOTUS has handed down the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions .

Actually, you're incorrect about self defense law. In most states, even Texas, you can only defend yourself to the extent your attacker can no longer defend himself. I.e. If you knock him to the ground and he is now in a "defensive posture," if you kick him, you will be charged with assault. If you kick him in the head, it's attempted murder. You can only use deadly force in very specific instances -- a gun pointed at you, a knife being thrust -- but remember, if you disarm him, you can no longer use deadly force. The decisions you mentioned were both about the constitutionality of certain specific gun control laws, they had nothing to do with self-defense. The self-defense laws have nothing to do with gun laws and they are not actually defined in the Constitution, which is why they're a mish-mash of state laws.

[TonyRedux]

Actually, you're incorrect about self defense law. In most states, even Texas, you can only defend yourself to the extent your attacker can no longer defend himself. I.e. If you knock him to the ground and he is now in a "defensive posture," if you kick him, you will be charged with assault. If you kick him in the head, it's attempted murder. You can only use deadly force in very specific instances -- a gun pointed at you, a knife being thrust -- but remember, if you disarm him, you can no longer use deadly force. The decisions you mentioned were both about the constitutionality of certain specific gun control laws, they had nothing to do with self-defense. The self-defense laws have nothing to do with gun laws and they are not actually defined in the Constitution, which is why they're a mish-mash of state laws.

ur incorrect about what i have stated. nowhere have i advocated that victims of violent attack should "punish" their attacker AFTER the threat has been stopped. in this thread i react to the posted links and the information provided therein, which state that the defendant/victim pulled an attacker off his friend and "kicked him a couple of times", b4 being knocked unconscious himself. there is no indication as to whether the assailant he kicked was in a defensive posture at any point, and the defendants subsequent unconsciousness is proof-positive that the attack was ongoing. that Canadian courts and prosecutors chose to prosecute this victim under these circumstances indicated underlines my point that Government has a natural urge to seek a monopoly on violence, regardless of Justice.

as to the mishmash of American laws by state, i refer u again to Dc vs Heller, where the Supreme Court of the United States expressly and explicitly ruled, among other things, that self-defense IS an inalienable right. on THAT basis, they granted relief for Dick Heller toward his very specific petition to have a pistol in his home...for SELF-DEFENSE. what's silly is that Scalia's explicit validation of self-defense was directly due to the lawyers for Washington DC stating in open court (at the Appeals level and then b4 SCOTUS) that "self-defense is NOT an inalienable right"! THAT claim is now in the dustbin of American history, where it will stay.

Heller was Incorporated to the States in the 2010 McDonald decision...now the litigation has begun to bring the mishmash of State laws into compliance with these decisions...as well as forthcoming ones. u might want to read both decisions closely b4 spouting off...and read my own writing more closely b4 trying to "read into" it.

yes, i am advocating that the defendant should not have had to pull the attacker off his friend and kick him, he should have summarily shot the attacker. not doing so left him vulnerable to further attack, and instead of being knocked unconscious, he could just as easily have been killed in that state. better them than me, and as they say, "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

[Leather69]

Yes it is "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

I n Australia.. e don't have a gun ie shoot and then worry culture. But there are plenty of cases where people have taken extreme actions to defend themselves and property without any consequences.. mind U that is after appeals.. in Queensland unfortunately there is still a defence of homosexual panic in assult/homocide which is a huge blunt on our leagal system. So in short... the above rules..

Ian

[Guest Matias47]

ur incorrect about what i have stated. nowhere have i advocated that victims of violent attack should "punish" their attacker AFTER the threat has been stopped. in this thread i react to the posted links and the information provided therein, which state that the defendant/victim pulled an attacker off his friend and "kicked him a couple of times", b4 being knocked unconscious himself. there is no indication as to whether the assailant he kicked was in a defensive posture at any point, and the defendants subsequent unconsciousness is proof-positive that the attack was ongoing. that Canadian courts and prosecutors chose to prosecute this victim under these circumstances indicated underlines my point that Government has a natural urge to seek a monopoly on violence, regardless of Justice.

as to the mishmash of American laws by state, i refer u again to Dc vs Heller, where the Supreme Court of the United States expressly and explicitly ruled, among other things, that self-defense IS an inalienable right. on THAT basis, they granted relief for Dick Heller toward his very specific petition to have a pistol in his home...for SELF-DEFENSE. what's silly is that Scalia's explicit validation of self-defense was directly due to the lawyers for Washington DC stating in open court (at the Appeals level and then b4 SCOTUS) that "self-defense is NOT an inalienable right"! THAT claim is now in the dustbin of American history, where it will stay.

Heller was Incorporated to the States in the 2010 McDonald decision...now the litigation has begun to bring the mishmash of State laws into compliance with these decisions...as well as forthcoming ones. u might want to read both decisions closely b4 spouting off...and read my own writing more closely b4 trying to "read into" it.

yes, i am advocating that the defendant should not have had to pull the attacker off his friend and kick him, he should have summarily shot the attacker. not doing so left him vulnerable to further attack, and instead of being knocked unconscious, he could just as easily have been killed in that state. better them than me, and as they say, "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

Actually, you're the one needs to do some reading. Both Heller and McDonald had to do with gun ownership and self protection, as you say, "in the home." Specifically gun ownership in the home and the right not to have to keep the gun(s) under trigger lock. Thus it has absolutely nothing to do with the situation in Canada. My example was to illustrate that even in America, despite the differences in the styles of government, the "natural right," as Scalia called it is not unlimited. Had you actually looked into the event in Canada what you would have discovered was that the investigators found the following:

"In the first incident, police allege, Raynard and two friends were leaving a bar when they came across two teenagers. One of the men in Raynard's group was assaulted, and another then turned on the teenagers before that fight broke up.

One of the men, Mr. Raynard, then followed the teenagers to a nearby parking lot, where they had a verbal argument. He (Italics mine) is alleged to have assaulted several people in the group before the incident escalated and he was beaten by several teenagers. "It's a sequence of events, where it starts in front of a hotel with one altercation, it then just continues," said Adams.

"Mr. Raynard's alleged involvement as the incident progressed is really what led to the charges against him." The Canadian Press, Friday October 16, 2009.

If the police here, in almost any area of the US made those findings, Raynard would have been charged with assault because any self defense part of the incident was over. Mind you, I'm not saying I support that Mr. Raynard pled guilty to lesser charges. I was merely pointing out that your drooling rant was off base.