Recent comments in /f/nottheonion

kevinds t1_j6w5mtm wrote

>AKA: an inaccurate guess that disagrees with the law.

>Purpose

>The purpose of section 11(h) is to protect against double jeopardy (Whaling, supra at paragraph 33). Generally, the principle against double jeopardy prevents double punishment for the same acts, as well as the unwarranted harassment of an accused by multiple prosecutions.

Charging a driver for being over-hours 4 different ways is still one act of being over hours.

>(i) Being tried again for the same offence

>This aspect of section 11(h) “is directed at preventing the State from making repeated attempts to convict an individual” (Shubley, supra at 15). In other words, it precludes both (a) trying a person again for an offence that he or she has already been acquitted of, and (b) trying a person again for an offence that he or she has already been found guilty and punished for (Whaling, supra at paragraphs 54, 56).

>(ii) Two offences the same

>The two offences with which the accused is charged or punished must be the same. They must contain the same elements and constitute one and the same offence arising out of the same set of circumstances (R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; Van Rassel, supra).

Based on the law above, I am pretty sure.

1

anal_opera t1_j6vokvo wrote

Not just the kids, even the school staff were basically like "eh we don't really have proof it happened" despite the literal video proof. I know Pakistan isn't exactly the human rights capital of the world but its ridiculous to punish a kid for speaking the native language of the country he's being raised in.

7

anal_opera t1_j6vo5hm wrote

I figured the article would have more context but nope. The title pretty much sums it up. Apparently they all have to speak English for some reason, and using their own first language is a cause for punishment. At this point I'm nearly certain we're all in the matrix and somebody's been skipping the updates so they don't have to restart the computer and wait.

12

DamnBunny t1_j6v8sjo wrote

Yes it is. Leaving it pink and exposed is cruel for many reasons. One its not in its natural color as nature intended. Two, it will be very vulnerable to predators. And it will have a hard time feeding since everybody can see a pink pigeon. So its starves to death or gets eaten. I am sure that was not their intention but they should have thought it through before doing something so wrong.

12