Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,416
- Points
- 1,160
Member of Canadian Forces Arrested in incident at Rideau Hall
- Thread starter MilEME09
- Start date
No. Nowhere is it alleged that he tried to murder the PM. The court record and his own admission is that he wanted to ‘arrest’ the PM - I.e., abduct / confine / hold him hostage.
Fairness compels us to be accurate about the facts, and what dumb shit he did but also did not do. Athough he caused a scary day for some really good cops, he didn’t threaten them or offer them violence, he didn’t try to fight his way through to the PM (though he was well equipped to). All the evidence we’re privy to is that he intended basically an abduction, but that the only death he envisioned in the end game was his own.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,522
- Points
- 1,160
So, only persons actually charged with a terrorism offence have engaged in terrorist activity?
And much the same could be said about any number of losers who have committed horrendous acts (and some who did less horrendous acts) and subsequently been labeled "terrorist".
I'll let you do you own research, it's easily found.
The charging of a sole individual (i.e., Lone Wolf) with a terrorism offence has never happened in Canada and is unlikely to happen due to the way the law is currently written even if the perpetrator's action "could" meet the CC definition of terrorist activity (and remained alive following the resolution of the incident). Most of the terrorism offences relate to actions involved in the planning of and support of groups.
In Hurren's case, his action "could" meet the definition. If they had so charged him (unlikely) and had been convicted of the same offences to which he pleaded guilty (he likely would not have so pleaded in that case), he could have then been liable to a much greater punishment.
Last edited:
The sentence he got was his plea deal. A whole bunch of additional weapons charges, and one of threatening the PM, went away. Probably Stays of Proceedings on those ones. His guilty plea was cited by the judge as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,522
- Points
- 1,160
A correction.
I was in error. There were terrorism charges laid against a "lone-wolf"; coincidentally with a CAF connection and was discussed on this means. I refer to the 2016 knife attack at the Toronto CFRC. The individual responsible was charged with "nine counts of committing indictable offences “for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group” contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code. The indictable offences underlying those nine counts are three allegations of attempted murder (counts 1, 2 and 3), two allegations of assault causing bodily harm (counts 4 and 5), three allegations of assault with a weapon (counts 6, 7 and 8) and one allegation of carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence (count 9). With the consent of the Crown, the defendant re-elected to be tried by a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury, and he entered pleas of not guilty to all counts."
He was however found not guilty of all those counts, the reasons for which are found in https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc2838/2018onsc2838.html
If there was no mention of it from the Police or Courts then it is not considered so.
If you want to go out on a limb we can consider all types of acts terrorism under the CCC, Which may include the actions and words of the sitting MP and his followers. But he has not been charged under the act so at this point it is null and void.
Many people have bene labeled as such, lots of them have involved the killing of civilians and or direct involvement with Known Terrorist entities
The actual definition is not as easy to find as one would lead you to think.
Nov 17, 2022 — Today, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announces the laying of terrorism charges against Gérald Nicolas
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Points
- 1,160
That's a wild difference in charges and outcomes.
- Reaction score
- 3,793
- Points
- 1,260
Update: done enough of his time to be released under conditions ....
winnipeg.ctvnews.ca
Manitoba man who rammed gates of Rideau Hall granted statutory release
A Manitoba man who armed himself and rammed the gates of Rideau Hall with a truck in 2020 to confront Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been granted statutory release.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,363
- Points
- 1,140
As per Canadian law once an inmate has served 2/3rds of their sentence they MUST be released unless the Crown (I think) can prove they should serve the full sentence.Update: done enough of his time to be released under conditions ....
Manitoba man who rammed gates of Rideau Hall granted statutory release
A Manitoba man who armed himself and rammed the gates of Rideau Hall with a truck in 2020 to confront Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been granted statutory release.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Points
- 1,160
Is that for real?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,363
- Points
- 1,140
It is. IF the inmate is of decent behavior they are released at 2/3. Murder is one of the exceptions where there are mandatory minimums.
Dangerous Offender - this is another kettle of fish though. The onus is on the Crown to satisfy the judges as to why an offender needs to be kept away from us for a long time. We had one recently tagged DO and is in for 18 years.
With the exceptions @OldSolduer noted, yeah, pretty much. The reasoning is that, in almost every case, an offender will inevitably finish their sentence and will be released from custody. Once their sentence is complete, there’s nothing in the law to keep any conditions on their release. What 2/3 statutory release does is it transitions convicted offenders from the institutional setting back into the community with the option of some heavy control mechanisms on their behaviour. Parole conditions can be pretty restrictive; orders to stay away from drugs and alcohol, not to associate with criminals, not to go certain places or do certain things, not to use the internet if that’s relevant, report to a parole supervisor regularly, live in a halfway houseseek and keep employment or schooling, etc etc.
Without parole during the course of the sentence, none of that can be imposed and enforced. You can imagine that offenders, after being in prison for years, might not fare well if their sentence expires and they’re dumped out into the community cold. Is it perfect? No. Does it generally work? Yes. About one in four federal prisoners eats a new criminal conviction within two years of release. Given that federal sentences mean serious and often habitual criminality, that’s not a bad success rate. Controlled and structured reintegration probably plays a fairly significant role in that.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,608
- Points
- 1,260
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,363
- Points
- 1,140
We all like to think the USA does it better and on certain cases it does. BUT each state has its own criminal law statutes and some states are wayyyyyy softer than others.Welcome to Canada
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,996
- Points
- 1,140
And, in others, a life sentence means you leave prison in a box.
Similar threads
