Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - offences number challenge

What does it mean to “knowingly” commit a crime?

Great question. Glad you asked. Many laws require that you “knowingly” engaged in a criminal act (iit doesn’t matter if you knew or not whether your actions violated the law, it only matters that you “knowingly” committed an act that was against the law). When a criminal statute says that, in order to be convicted, you must have “knowingly” committed the crime, the crime involves mens rea.

It may be easier to explain this concept by illustration: Let’s say that a statute made it a crime to “knowingly carry a gun into a supermarket.” To be convicted of the crime, you must have known that 1) you had a gun, and 2) you were in a supermarket. If, for instance, you were completely loony and you thought you were carrying a box of Twinkies into a donut shop, then you didn’t “knowingly” commit the crime, and therefore you didn’t commit the crime. Likewise, if an ex-boyfriend approached you at the entrance of a supermarket and secretly dropped a pistol into your bag, then you didn’t “know” you had a gun when you walked into the supermarket and, therefore, you didn’t commit the crime.

The government doesn’t always have to prove that you “knowingly” committed a crime through direct evidence (such as a confession). Circumstantial evidence is also allowed. Therefore, in the above case, if you didn’t admit to knowing you had a gun in your bag when you entered a supermarket, the government could introduce evidence that someone saw you put the gun in your bag or overheard you telling someone else that you planned to take a gun in the supermarket or even that your bag was too heavy not to know there was a gun inside it.

Author:	Doc G [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:	offences number challenge
PH driver looses his badge, because he was caught repeatedly touting in area A. Gets badged as a Hackney in area B. Advertises as "your local taxi firm", ten miles from area B. in area A (yellow pages etc) No booking office, but lives in area A. Still plys for hire on the streets of area A Been reported many many times, nothing happened (no surprise there! - its Chichester District) I count six offences so far - any advance??? _______________________________________________________

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:
PH driver looses his badge, because he was caught repeatedly touting in area A.........one Gets badged as a Hackney in area B.........no offence Advertises as "your local taxi firm", ten miles from area B. in area A (yellow pages etc)............doubt it, yell/phones/radios know no borders No booking office, but lives in area A........hes a area B hackney now, doesnt need an office surely Still plys for hire on the streets of area A........if hes caught, yes, but innocent till proven guilty is a cornerstone of english law. so thats one, maybe one and a half?

Author:	Doc G [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Still plys for hire on the streets of area A I don't count if he hasn't been caught - the act is still illegal

Author:	Doc G [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Should have said he did not declare his ban when he applied to area B Quote: Gets badged as a Hackney in area B Not a fit and proper person?

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: offences number challenge
Doc G wrote: PH driver looses his badge, because he was caught repeatedly touting in area A. Gets badged as a Hackney in area B. Did he make area B aware that area A revoked his license?

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

offences number challenge http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9354	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Doc G [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:48 am ]
Post subject:
Nope:

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:06 am ]
Post subject:
Doc G wrote: Nope: how do you know? the LO cant have divulged that to you

Author:	Doc G [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: how do you know? I asked - and got a reply Quote: the LO cant have divulged that to you Um... Right or wrong - he most certainly did. Quote: lots of things are illegal litter spitting speeding but yr only guilty if caught, charged and convicted Its the ACT that is illegal - conviction is secondary, and is intended to prove culpability. Quote: 30 years ago carl bridgewater (13) was shot dead and 4 men locked up, they are now, officially, innocent Very true, but the poor lad was still murdered, which I believe is an illegal act?? your logic fails totally here. The failing was that the system brought a guilty verdict on four innocent men, thankfully overturned latterly.

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:
returning to our miscreant HC driver, when he gets caught, charged and convicted then and only then is he actually guilty of any offence by the way, its only partially the act that is the offence, he may not be aware its an offence, and maybe you could advise him?...

Author:	gusmac [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:
wannabeeahack wrote: returning to our miscreant HC driver, when he gets caught, charged and convicted then and only then is he actually guilty of any offence You are guilty when you break the law - not when you get caught or convicted. Being guilty means you have broken the law - even if you get away with it. Capture and conviction mean you have been proven guilty by legal process. Not the same thing at all. wannabeeahack wrote: by the way, its only partially the act that is the offence, he may not be aware its an offence, and maybe you could advise him?... That's a crock of sh*t. Ignorance of the law is no defence. You are still guilty of an offense even if you didn't know it was illegal.

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:
What does it mean to “knowingly” commit a crime? Great question. Glad you asked. Many laws require that you “knowingly” engaged in a criminal act (iit doesn’t matter if you knew or not whether your actions violated the law, it only matters that you “knowingly” committed an act that was against the law). When a criminal statute says that, in order to be convicted, you must have “knowingly” committed the crime, the crime involves mens rea. It may be easier to explain this concept by illustration: Let’s say that a statute made it a crime to “knowingly carry a gun into a supermarket.” To be convicted of the crime, you must have known that 1) you had a gun, and 2) you were in a supermarket. If, for instance, you were completely loony and you thought you were carrying a box of Twinkies into a donut shop, then you didn’t “knowingly” commit the crime, and therefore you didn’t commit the crime. Likewise, if an ex-boyfriend approached you at the entrance of a supermarket and secretly dropped a pistol into your bag, then you didn’t “know” you had a gun when you walked into the supermarket and, therefore, you didn’t commit the crime. The government doesn’t always have to prove that you “knowingly” committed a crime through direct evidence (such as a confession). Circumstantial evidence is also allowed. Therefore, in the above case, if you didn’t admit to knowing you had a gun in your bag when you entered a supermarket, the government could introduce evidence that someone saw you put the gun in your bag or overheard you telling someone else that you planned to take a gun in the supermarket or even that your bag was too heavy not to know there was a gun inside it.

Author:	gusmac [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:
wannabeeahack wrote: What does it mean to “knowingly” commit a crime? Great question. Glad you asked. Many laws require that you “knowingly” engaged in a criminal act (iit doesn’t matter if you knew or not whether your actions violated the law, it only matters that you “knowingly” committed an act that was against the law). When a criminal statute says that, in order to be convicted, you must have “knowingly” committed the crime, the crime involves mens rea. It may be easier to explain this concept by illustration: Let’s say that a statute made it a crime to “knowingly carry a gun into a supermarket.” To be convicted of the crime, you must have known that 1) you had a gun, and 2) you were in a supermarket. If, for instance, you were completely loony and you thought you were carrying a box of Twinkies into a donut shop, then you didn’t “knowingly” commit the crime, and therefore you didn’t commit the crime. Likewise, if an ex-boyfriend approached you at the entrance of a supermarket and secretly dropped a pistol into your bag, then you didn’t “know” you had a gun when you walked into the supermarket and, therefore, you didn’t commit the crime. The government doesn’t always have to prove that you “knowingly” committed a crime through direct evidence (such as a confession). Circumstantial evidence is also allowed. Therefore, in the above case, if you didn’t admit to knowing you had a gun in your bag when you entered a supermarket, the government could introduce evidence that someone saw you put the gun in your bag or overheard you telling someone else that you planned to take a gun in the supermarket or even that your bag was too heavy not to know there was a gun inside it. Like "knowingly" Plagiarising? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism http://www.quizlaw.com/criminal_law/wha ... nowing.php Nice cut and paste BTW

Author:	bloodnock [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Is the Answer 87?

Author:	gusmac [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:
bloodnock wrote: Is the Answer 87? No you forgot to carry the 1 Silly

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/