[For the purposes of s. 173(1) of Canada's Criminal Code, does a private vehicle on a public road constitute a public place?]

Apparently it is really tricky. Found this:

 

[33]      On appeal, after considering R. v. Clark, in that case the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Pennett, J. held that:

There is nothing in the Clark decision that would suggest that Sloan, supra, has been overruled, and accordingly, the trial judge is entitled to consider the underlying circumstances regarding the use of the vehicle.

[34]      Further, it was held:

I conclude that whether an act takes place within a motor vehicle is an act committed in a "public place" or in private is a question of fact to be inferred from all of the surrounding circumstances.  In R. v. Clark, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada considered an act which occurred in the living room of a private home, which obviously, of itself, is a private place.  The court concluded the fact that there may be visual access to the interior of a living room would not, of itself, change the nature of a living room into a "public place."  The same cannot be said of a motor vehicle because of its very nature and the fact the motor vehicle may be located from time to time in a variety of locations and in a wide variety of circumstances.  Whether it is a public place or private place will depend on the location of the vehicle and the circumstances in which it is found.  In my view, the observations of the court in the Clark decisions are confined to the facts of that case; a living room in a private home, or to facts which are reasonably similar.

[For the purposes of s. 173(1) of Canada's Criminal Code, does a private vehicle on a public road constitute a public place?]

Accidentally put this in White Noise. If a mod could move it to off-topic I'd be happy.

[For the purposes of s. 173(1) of Canada's Criminal Code, does a private vehicle on a public road constitute a public place?]

s. 173(1) is of course governed by/pursuant to the definition of "public place" outlined in s. 150, which is as follows:

 

Quote

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

 

I have already determined through research that "access" in this context means physical and not merely visual access, or at least I am reasonably sure of this.

 

Now, clearly a private vehicle is not somewhere the general public has access to by right nor invitation. But I am curious if there's a weird twist of logic somewhere that considers vehicles in public places to be public places themselves despite this not being readily apparent in a strict reading of the law.

 

s. 213(2), as we all know, defines "public place" for a separate offence. I have quoted this definition immediately below:

 

Quote

In this section,

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

 

This is probably trickier than is at first apparent. But if a motor vehicle located in a public place is expressly defined as meeting the definition of a "public place" in this section of the Code, does it not follow that through the omission of any similar phrasing in s. 150 we are to believe that, for the purposes of s. 173(1), motor vehicles located in public places are not to be considered as public places and as such it is not possible to commit an indecent act in a private motor vehicle?

 

I really need an answer to this so any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Author of Captain Underpants Pulls (Racist) Book]

Does this mean Ook and Gluk are no longer canon?

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

10 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Do you mind me asking....where did you stay when you were homeless?  And which hospitals.  I truly want to be more educated on this if I'm way off base.

Mostly downtown Vancouver. In the earlier stages of my homelessness I stayed primarily in shelters and didn't sleep out, but I grew to dislike them and started spending the night outside on sidewalks.

 

VGH, St. Paul's, Lions Gate, others I can't remember.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

11 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

You can only speak for the "I" part....not the "most people".

 

And you didn't address the part about dignity...basics like water/washrooms.

 

Sure...food is handed out provided you get there.  Ha - you don't think people are dying on the street?  Turn the news on.  

 

Fires (trying to keep warm)

Fights in homeless camps

Overdoses

 

This "I'd rather die" stuff is unproven if you've been there, done that and didn't.  It means it's not quite that dramatic because you, reportedly, got out/free.  So it seems you wouldn't rather die because you didn't (which is awesome if any of this is to be believed...this is the internet so it's face value right now).

 

People in crisis due to mental health are not experiencing a great life and any help they can be provided with is better than no help.  You wont' change my mind on that.

 

Anyhow....good for you for getting out of the situation.  I'm not sure I believe it (if you have to Google things rather than referring to your own "experience") but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  At least officially.

Water and washrooms are abundant. Nobody has trouble finding those things in, e.g., Vancouver. More public washrooms would be beneficial, but it's hardly a problem. (Maybe it's worse with COVID or for diabetics, but I didn't have any real issue here.)

 

What's wrong with bonfires?

You won't get in a fight unless you're picking one out.

Overdoses happen to hard drug users. Not all homeless people use drugs, let alone stuff like fent, and not all drug users are homeless. If you're a drug user with housing, you're probably more likely to experience death from overdose as you're more likely to use alone.

 

Where did I say "I would rather die" than x? Granted, I would certainly rather be dead than spend my life in a place like Riverview, which is where this conversation started. If you've never spent a month in a psychiatric ward, consider yourself lucky - those places are awful in ways English can't express.

 

The wrong "help" is harmful, and disguising the stripping and mutilation of basic human rights as "help" is disingenuous and dangerous to free life.

 

I googled the list because resources are more abundant than I can say off the top of my head. There are more locations than I am even aware of, which is part of my point. As well, I didn't want to say the exact few places I frequented for meals under paranoia of doxxing.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

6 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

For sure, that is why homeless people die at the younger age, are in worse health shape, more likely to be killed, assaulted and raped etc. Because it’s more humane to let them live in the street.

You ever look at stats or is this is just your opinion?

I've been homeless before and have spent extensive time in hospitals.

 

I'm speaking from a point of knowing how absolutely barbaric it is to keep people in those places.

 

I - and most people - would rather live shortly and well than long and in a bad way.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Where?   Let's hear how they go about their daily lives out there?  (FTR I've known people out there, so am curious as to what information you can provide).

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/this-map-shows-where-vancouver-residents-can-get-free-and-low-cost-food-1.4941163

 

There are other places/programs not listed here as well. We would be hearing about deaths from malnutrition if people could not find sustenance on the streets.

 

Everyone spends their time differently.

 

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

It's your opinion that it's "more humane" on the streets than in a hospital setting.  Hospital setting = access to water, washrooms, food, medicine.

 

I don't agree with you.

 

Neither is ideal, but at least with one there are basic necessities provided for.

One still has their needs met if they're on the street in BC. Nobody starves.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

12 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

They do moreso according to the legal system that empowers them to be the best/most trained/authoritative at making assessments that can advise the judiciary when such decisions of social separation must be made.

 

Again, building a bomb without threatening to detonate it, is still a crime. There are plenty of times when someone on the verge of a psychotic episode requires state intervention and then medical assessments, treatment, supervision and then follow up. 
 

The safety of society requires this and the state on behalf of society in which that person lives can legally infringe and restrict some of their rights and freedoms.

Psychosis is not a predictor of violence, though - just that someone is psychotic does not mean they are going to go out and kill someone.

 

And just that things are the way they are does not mean they should be.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

12 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Uttering death threats is a thing.   You don't wait until someone acts on it.

 

Sort of the same deal if someone's exhibiting violent behaviour and mental distress.  You intervene, you don't wait until you have a reason to because, just like today, that involves innocent victims.  They don't get the luxury of being "locked away".  

Yes, uttering threats is a thing. I have talked about that. It is a legal issue at that point and not a medical one. Violent behaviour is also a legal issue and does not need to be pathologized.

 

If it's ever at the point where something needs to be done to keep society safe, it's ALREADY criminal, not medical. Until there is criminal basis on which to lock someone away, that person should not be locked away. A doctor having a hunch that someone poses a danger is worthless unless that person has made threats, intimidated people, built a bomb, etc.; that is, until there's concrete evidence that such a person is a danger to the public, they should not be stripped of their rights. And if there is concrete evidence that such a person is a danger to the public, it is at that point a criminal issue and the doctor can be left out.

 

12 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Neither does leaving them on their own on the streets to fend for themselves.  

I have already said I agree with this. My argument is that it's more humane to let people live on the street than keep them in hospital settings. Ideally they would all be given proper housing instead.

 

1 hour ago, sonoman said:

A whole bunch of people in Lynn Valley yesterday probably cares. 

Because someone went on a stabbing spree, if a doctor thinks someone else is a danger to the public without basis good enough to earn a conviction, they should be locked up?

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

4 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Allow me to illustrate the parallels:

 

 

Doctors have the training moreso to separate those most needing separation from society while they are treated to longer be threats to society or themselves which is better for the individual and society as a whole. 

They really do not.

 

And it does not matter until the individual has committed an offence, at which point they can go to jail.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

Just now, Sharpshooter said:

You sure?

Yes?

 

I don't see how it affects my argument?

 

Obviously criminal offences need to be handled, and it's possible to prove things like conspiracy, etc.?

 

What I'm against is a purely medical view - i.e a doctor's opinion - of an individual mandating that they be placed in hospital settings?

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

Just now, Sharpshooter said:

It’s also a real world scenario that the State has to protect against. 

I agree?

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

1 minute ago, Sharpshooter said:

Building a bomb in the basement scenario would refute your point, since building a bomb is criminal whether or not any overt threat has been levelled against oneself or others. 
 

 

That's a complete strawman.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

20 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I'm going to tap out now.

 

Respectfully, I can't have this convo and I massively disagree with the bolded. Once actualised...it has gone passed potential. 

 

 

 

 

That's the point. Potential - unless this perceived potential has its basis on a verifiable threat that was uttered or on some type of intimidation such as brandishing a weapon - is not something the state should have any right to act against and is far from actualization. Until there is a criminal basis to strip someone of their freedom of movement, etc., there is not a good enough basis to do so.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

8 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Your life and freedoms are already governed and moreso if you are found to be a threat to yourself or society, based on medical/legal assessments. 

 

Society has evolved to this point after trying it the other way as you suggested, because it doesn’t work in keeping people safe.

 

A trained medical/legal opinion is worth far more than a lay person’s opinion when it comes to medical/legal matters. That’s a given.

I disagree.

 

Locking people away under a medical but not criminal basis does not keep the victims of that arrangement safe at all; it robs them of their entire life.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

What about potential threat to themselves or others? as i asked. Just wait for them to do something and let the courts decide? 

My bro is Bi-polar. Currently in a manic spiral. The 2 times he tried to kill himself, he later admitted he wasn't himself. He was happy it wasn't his business, as he still lives.

 

He's big and tough and hates meds so we keep doing the same game.

 

So, I care about a Dr's opinion. By bro doesn't trust them but I think they are experts, you know due to the training and expertise. 

 

As I said more succinctly before: potential threats do not matter until actualized, unless the basis for that threat is an utterance or act of intimidation from the person we're supposing is a threat, in which case it is quickly a legal issue and not a medical one.

 

A doctor's opinion should be considered worthless when the alternative is to allow that opinion to govern lives and revoke/infringe upon freedoms.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

If they are a threat to themselves of others would you rather have the mentally ill in prison?

If someone is a threat to themself, that's their business.

 

If someone has harmed others, they can go through the court systems.

 

If it's simply a doctor's opinion that an individual is at risk of harming themself/others, who cares?

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

It wasn't a place for people with sense.

 

We need mental health support more than ever these days. If they are a threat to themselves and/or the community, we can't have them living on the streets. 

 

Locking people in institutions does not constitute support.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

It's inhumane to have people sleeping in tents in snow and rain.  Rats and fires.  Also - they put others at risk when they wander around untreated/unchecked.  Many are incapable of being in that setting without proper treatment and meds.  They're not fit to be wandering the streets without the proper monitoring.

 

I do agree that locking people away is horrible....but, as said, with improvements there could be a better option.  

 

These people often don't have the luxury of good "sense" in the throes of mental health issues.  So keeping them (and others) safe is important.

I agree with your first sentence. Such people should be given housing. The fact remains that it's more humane to let people have their freedom even if they don't have shelter than to lock them away in some godforsaken facility. Involuntary hospitalization is a human rights issue.

 

Most people with mental illness pose no risk to anyone else, and nobody deserves to be monitored.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

13 minutes ago, gurn said:

Dumping people on the streets is barbaric.

Hospital could be upgraded or rebuilt elsewhere.

Place needed a review to go through it, change some truly old school ideas.

What happened fixed nothing and only added to the public and patient danger levels, not cool.

 

 Now what about your desire for no trials?

 

Anyone with sense would rather live on the streets than in a hospital regardless of any "upgrades" to it. It's not a good life. In fact, it's highly inhumane to keep people locked away.

 

I don't think anyone is at significantly more risk of "danger" as a result of the closing of Riverview and challenge you to prove your point.

 

I never said anything about trials.

[Lynn Valley Library Stabbings, Multiple Victims]

22 minutes ago, gurn said:

B.C. used to have a hospital for the mentally ill, but the pproperty was worth a fortune. So they shut it down, moved every one out and sold the land.

Turf every one into the community, then paid lip service, instead of actual money and programs, to expanding community help.

The hospital was barbaric. It should have been shut down.

[Mafia: Vanilla Wars [Game Over]]

 

[Mafia: Vanilla Wars [Game Over]]

14 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

NO FRICKEN POSTING WHILE GAME IS ON, YOU HAD MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO SIGN UP,  YOU DIDN"T SO STOP POSTING!!!!!!!

 

 

IF YOU POST AGAIN YOU WILL AUTOMATICALLY SUB FOR CADUCKS15!!!!

lol you don't own the forum