Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
The Criminal Code does not make the offense, it 'codifies' it. I am not placing the importance on 'it', but upon 'that which it holds'. IN the absence of it, I would still claim that the actions described within are wrong. They are not wrong merely because they are described within. They were wrong before the authors of the CCoC decided to codify them...
Click to expand...
What Criminal Code are you talking about? The one I know has offences like 14 years in prison for alarming her Majesty:

http://canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec49

I never thought to hear such moralizing law and order crap from the FOTL crowd. If it's in the Criminal Code, it's inherently wrong, otherwise it wouldn't have been codified in the Criminal Code? Give me a *********** break.

Get a grip.
 
D'rok said:
What Criminal Code are you talking about? The one I know has offences like 14 years in prison for alarming her Majesty:

http://canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec49

I never thought to hear such moralizing law and order crap from the FOTL crowd. If it's in the Criminal Code, it's inherently wrong, otherwise it wouldn't have been codified in the Criminal Code? Give me a *********** break.

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

I bolded that which I never said, yet which you seem to be assigning to me as having said.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I bolded that which I never said, yet which you seem to be assigning to me as having said.
Click to expand...

And here's me bolding you saying it:

FreemanMenard said:
The Criminal Code does not make the offense, it 'codifies' it. I am not placing the importance on 'it', but upon 'that which it holds'. IN the absence of it, I would still claim that the actions described within are wrong. They are not wrong merely because they are described within. They were wrong before the authors of the CCoC decided to codify them,
Click to expand...

Make up your mind. Does the CC codify things that are inherently wrong or doesn't it? Would you claim the actions described within are wrong or wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
So Rob's C3PO team have not yet arrested (or recorded their behavior leading to their arrest, or whatever) any police officers? What's the holdup? I'm sure there are no shortages of police officers arresting people for drug possession, travelling upon the land without a commercial license, etc.
 
D'rok said:
And here's me bolding you saying it:



Make up your mind. Does the CC codify things that are inherently wrong or doesn't it? Would you claim the actions described within are wrong or wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty or break public peace

49. Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,

(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, or

(b) does an act that is intended or is likely to cause bodily harm to Her Majesty,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Click to expand...


Engaging in actions with willful intent to harm or alarm ANYONE is in my mind wrong.

The fact 'Her Majesty' is apparently (though not clearly) granted higher status does to me seem wrong as well.

Now lets talk MURDER!!!

Is that only wrong because it is codified?

(bear in mind I answered your question, and now you should answer mine.)
 
Bishop said:
So Rob's C3PO team have not yet arrested (or recorded their behavior leading to their arrest, or whatever) any police officers? What's the holdup? I'm sure there are no shortages of police officers arresting people for drug possession, travelling upon the land without a commercial license, etc.
Click to expand...

So this is something you 'want' to see?
 
Citizens reporting on the police is, as noted above, a well recognized procedure but I'm unable to determine how or why this would be resorted to by the FMOLT believers.

Perhaps Menard could offer specifics as to what crimes he plans to be watching for? Real crimes or FMOTL pretend ones?

Menard said;
I will have to look at your previous question I have missed later. You may need to remind me again, though I will try to remember it.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm going to not answer that
 
Last edited:
Engaging in actions with willful intent to harm or alarm ANYONE is in my mind wrong.
Click to expand...

A bit like taking $800 from someone and telling him he can beat the system with your information?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Engaging in actions with willful intent to harm or alarm ANYONE is in my mind wrong.

The fact 'Her Majesty' is apparently (though not clearly) granted higher status does to me seem wrong as well.

Now lets talk MURDER!!!

Is that only wrong because it is codified?

(bear in mind I answered your question, and now you should answer mine.)
Click to expand...
It is an indictable offence to ALARM Her Majesty. For instance, I could show her a video of you talking into the camera, thus alarming her, and the result could be 14 years in the pen for me.

Mind you, I guess I'd deserve it under those circumstances.
 
This has to be a first. In this thread, Mr FOTL guru himself defends an absurd provision in a statute from criticism by a government law type.

I think I need a nap.
 
I want to know about the uniform. What kind of hat will i be provided with when watching from a distance some crime being committed? Is there a freeman police station ? What kind of freeman police car will we have? I do hope it's a Land Rover FreeLander.Will the freemen on the beat be allowed to use a truncheon? Do we get a tea break during the shift? I'd love walkie talkies and a whistle, can we have them,can we? Please please bended knees. Will Rob make speeches at the start of the shift saying things like "be careful out there"? Who gets to the enigmatic one with the drink problem and the estranged wife and kids? If i'm to join i definitely want the 30 something chick officer with something to prove but with a thing for older detectives in my squad. Which begs the question who gets to be Columbo? I'm not wearing the Starsky and Hutch cardigan, Rob that's all yours. This is exciting, i'm off to watch an episode of The Sweeny. I bags being Jack Reagan.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I will have to look at your previous question I have missed later. You may need to remind me again, though I will try to remember it.
Click to expand...

That's fine, I will remind you later if need be.

The Criminal Code does not make the offense, it 'codifies' it. I am not placing the importance on 'it', but upon 'that which it holds'. IN the absence of it, I would still claim that the actions described within are wrong. They are not wrong merely because they are described within.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the current version of the Criminal Code of Canada corresponds perfectly with your personal views of right and wrong? Because you appear to be claiming that all actions described in the Criminal Code are wrong in a moral sense. It would be unusual given the numerous and constant changes to the Criminal Code that its current version would be your perfect representation of right and wrong.

This leads me to wonder whether or not people are bound by statutes they don't agree with and haven't consented to?

They were wrong before the authors of the CCoC decided to codify them, and now having done so, they do not have the right to decide they are wrong merely by virtue of the fact the didi codify them. And they do not have the right to 'make them ok', by removing them.
Click to expand...

This is just your opinion though. The criminal code is not concerned with what is "ok" in a moral sense. It exists to designate what actions will lead to criminal punishment. If something is not in the Criminal Code then regardless of whether it is right or wrong morally, you can rest assured that you won't be criminally punished for it. So if legislators remove something from the criminal code then it is "ok" in that people are now free to do that thing without criminal punishment. The statute dictates what happens, not any moral arguments.

Initially the Code may have been an attempt to codify the common law of crimes as it existed at the time, but it is a statute like any other and regardless of whether you morally agree with it or not, I don't see how that would change your theory regarding individual consent.
 
If you want to see how ridiculous Robs idea is just read this post he wrote on Ickes.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059079495&postcount=145
Never heard of a Peace Officer Act. There is no such thing here. There is a Police Act in many of the provinces, or something similar. I have given up on expecting the children here to distinguish between them. It starts with a 'P' and ends with 'Act', so it just must be the 'Peace Officer Act'. Is that your logic? Plus, I NEVER assume, as you folks so often do that it is applicable UNTIL I actually read it. Unlike you, who says 'He must also recognize...." yet you give NO EVIDENCE that the Act in question even exists, nor have the read it. But they want me to accept it. WHY? Due to the title alone?
Click to expand...

That was months after he was supposedly recruiting people??????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom