02-20-2020, 08:48 PM
(02-20-2020, 07:11 PM)jeffster Wrote:(02-19-2020, 05:01 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Why do you think a charge of child endangerment is likely? I'd be surprised if you can find even a single instance where a HTA charge leads to an additional criminal indictment of child endangerment. Parents who drive distracted with a child in their car and end crashing as a result are endangering their children as well, but that's not the charge that ever gets applied. Whether I agree with it or not, this is the same situation, police would be applying a very substantial double standard here.
I guess though in Jenna's case it would be Abandoning Child:
Abandoning child
218 Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Further to that:
Proving Abandoning a Child under s. 218 should include:
☐ identity of accused as culprit
☐ date and time of incident
☐ jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
☐ the culprit abandons or exposes a child;
☐ the culprit intended to abandon or expose the child;
☐ the child is under the age of 10;
☐ the culprit was aware of the child's age;
☐ the act causes the child's life likely to be endangered or health likely to be permanently injured; and
☐ the endangerment to the child was reasonably foreseeable to the culprit.
In this case, you can check off everything.
It's not a HTA offence, obviously, but a criminal code charge. It's not hard to prove as obviously she intentionally (disobeyed) went around the barricade and warnings and the child was seriously injured. I can't imagine that charges won't occur but time will tell.
That wasn't the point I was making. This is even more ridiculous.