The Kate McMillan Fantastical Projection Fantasy Contest from Ianism! The Sequel
“Afterthought - has anyone else forgotten the March 8 announcement of the Tim Horton’s opening at the Canadian base at Kandahar? And it’s unreasonable for people to ask who was responsible for a gasoline fueled explosion in one of th... [Read More]

Tracked on April 13, 2006 2:27 PM

I'm sure he wasn't named Mohammed.

The one name I'm absolutely certain he didn't have is Mohammed, because Mohammed was the name of the one true prophet of God, who did not have sexual relations with a 9-year old bride (Aisha, whom he didn't marry when she was 6) or joyously order the beheading of his religious enemies in the hundreds. The religion he founded, Islam, is a religion of peace.

Therefore, he could not have been named Mohammed.

Police haven't yet positively identified a man burned beyond recognition? I don't find that surprising. DNA identification only works if you have something to compare to. And it's harder than it looks on CSI.

The conservatively inclined papers probably thought it was Emerson doing another jump from the frying pan...

There was talk at the time the man was of asian descent and was distraught over some family matters

Just because the police have his drivers licence and car does'nt mean that his name was Gamil Garbi,.. er, uh,... no, No,.. NO!!! hold on I mean Mark LePine, which is FRENCH, so you see he is really really Canadian and in NO way muslim in any way what so ever!!

Really!

Honest!

Now, Move along there Johnny!
And Dhimmi UP!!

Well, if it was a terrorist act of sorts, it was certainly a bizzare mode of operation.

Still, I suppose we've seen a great many weird things before; ie a young lad renting an SUV and running down his classroom fellows because their were non-believers.

Good question.......Not news anymore?
Maybe its just too much to expect the MSM to follow up on anything with facts , details etc.....!?

nobody has seen Paul Martin in awhile and he is probably very depressed . . .

Jut wondering if there is any connection.

They should just as Carolyn Bennett or Jenny Robinson to I.D. him, they seem to know the Majority of Canadians.

Originally there was something about the police having a difficult time finding the next of kin who are not in Canada.

Surely somebody knows.

nobody has seen Paul Martin in awhile and he is probably very depressed . . .

He had his picture in yesterday's Sun - he was at Saturday's Raptors game. Now that's depressing!

OK, I don't mean to be the heavy in this, but can we show a LITTLE compassion for the guy and/or his family in the event he was not a terrorist but rather a seriously disturbed individual?

If he was distraught over some family concerns, I would think that comments like we are seeing are not only cynical, but don't represent the truly compassionate side that we (C)conservatives would like to think we have - with or without religious overtones. I believe that the mechanism of death shows that this individual was in some mental distress. A suicide bomber would choose a more expeditious route to the 72 virgins and everlasting glory.

Just my $.02 worth.

The responsible Toronto Police Services 53 Division has issued a number of press releases on the Horton incident. The latest is available on http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9696.pdf, and says in a nutshell that the family has asked that the name not be released.

You might take up any suspicions or requests for additional information with them.

For some possible background, here is the text of the Toronto Police Service news release from late last week.

(See: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9696.pdf)

=====

Suspicious Death at Tim Hortons, Update, 53 Division

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 2:01 PM
53 Division
416-808-5300

On Sunday, April 2, 2006, emergency services personnel responded to a fire at a Tim Hortons restaurant at 769 Yonge Street.

See related release. (http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9678.pdf)

The victim has been positively identified. At the request of the family, his identity will not be released.

Constable Wendy Drummond, Public Information, for Detective Sergeant Myron Demkew, 53 Division

=====

Based on previous news releases, honouring the family's request to withhold the identity in such cases isn't unusual.

Psst. Agitfact. Shhhh. Don't reign on their parade. Don't take away a good opportunity to insult Muslims without any basis in fact or reality or any connection to this incident.

Ted
Cerberus

This man committed suicide in a manner and place that put the public and the employees there at huge risk, closing down a large part of a major metropolitan city in a wider terrorism scare. His family's wishes should not trump the facts.

Kate, I rather doubt that its anybody in Saskatchewan's business. And I do not see a right wing uprising in Toronto over the matter. Why don't you go back to your fields and mind your own business?

Kate is correct.

Public safety and security are more important than privacy.

I say release the name so the people can find out for themselves whether he was connected to any groups that pose a threat to society... or not.

Another damning example of the Liberal legacy. The dangerous person(s) always get the most consideration, to hell with those at risk from them, the victims.

I'm not sure I understand the public interest angle, Kate. The police have concluded and stated publicly that:

− the circumstances leading to the flash fire were not accidental,
− the injuries leading to the man's death were self−inflicted, and
− there are no criminal aspects to this incident.

It is normally the left clamoring for citizen review of police investigations and the right clamoring back that the police should be trusted to do their job. Other than a couple of truly moonbat/wingnut, tin foil hat brigade-types here and there, are there any grander suspicious facts out there? Am I missing something here?

Ted
Cerberus

Kate, I'm not sure I agree with you on that one. A solid conservative principle is that crimes (and the people who commit them) should be judged by what the accused intended...and not what the victim (or, in this case, the general public) sufferred.

That's why 1st degree murder is considered worse than, say for example, negligent homicide. Even though the victim of murder may have died instantly while, in the case of negligence, the victim could have suffered for days. The law doesn't care. Crimes are graded according to what went on through the eyes of the accused...not what the victims (or public) feels.

If you throw away this principle, then you open the door to people like the NDP who feel that harrassment should be defined as anything that offends anyone.

So, in this case...if the man was disturbed and suicidal, I would argue that his crime cannot be considered so harsh that his family should have to deal with his/their names put in the news. It does not serve the public good.

Kate was just trying to score another cheap innuendo shot which tells you something about here motives/prejudices. By the way, I hear Calvert plans on footing the bill for 5,000 Muslims to immigrate to Saskatchewan every year where I hear many plan on taking up residence on the western outskirts of Saskatoon. There goes Kates neighbourhood.

Also, they haven't released the name of ther eight dead Bandidos. Isn't "bandeed" Uzbek for holy warrior? Again, the MSM is hiding the truth!

More seriously, the dead guy is supposed to be South Asian. He may be Muslim. He may not. But either way, you'd have to be a very serious nut to think it was terrorism. Not every act of jaywalking-by-Muslim is terrorism.

But I have a sneaking suspicion, Kate, that you are privy to some information about the deadman's religious and/or ethnic background -- you wouldn't walk out quite so far on this nutbar limb without some inside info.

So spill it.

Hey, Sentinel: what do you know about the deceased's family to call them dangerous and putting the rest of us at risk? Suicide occurs all too frequently in this country. Do you have one scintilla of evidence that the police are bold-faced lying to the public here as you suggest?

Ah, but just as facts shouldn't interfere with a right-wingers opportunity to bash Muslims, we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a chance to blame the actions of the police (city responsibility) on the Liberal Party.

Ted
Cerberus

A guy drops in at somebody's place.
He finds that he disagrees with most people there and begins by trying to change their minds. When they won't he becomes rude and obnoxious. As the night wears on he becomes more incoherent and belligerent.
He comes back day after day to trade insults and curse his host. What kind of weirdo fills his days conducting this kind of intercourse?

BCL you tend to be more muddled later in the day so finish the bottle up and sleep it off. You are an embarrassment to yourself.

BCL,

Why isn't it the Canadian Public's business to know the background of somebody that firebombed a CANADIAN PUBLIC BUSINESS? Care to explain your snippy comment? Once again you prove to be long on arrogance and embarrassingly short on substance.

a) The names of the eight dead Bandido members have been released, along with their ages and city of residence.

b) I have no inside knowledge. I simply thought it was an excellent question, considering the circumstances of the suicide. (If I did, I'd be publishing it.)

A guy set himself of fire in an admittedly public place. There is actually a difference between this "fire bombing".

I think Kate (and many people on this Blog) yearn for an act of terrorism to justify their hatred for Muslims (or lets just say brown skin people because I doubt they could tell Muslims from from anyone else that origonated in that part of the world).

Ted: I was NOT referring to the family. Read my post more carefully. What the decedent did did indeed place others at risk.

Anyone who places the public at risk is dangerous. It's a simple enough thing to understand.

If you wish to disagree, fine.

I made my point. No need to defame me, Kate or anyone who may see the situation differently than the left may.

Why yes, BCL - I "need to justify my hatred" of Muslims. That is why I've been consistantly supportive of a free and democratic Middle East, and have frequently quoted Iraqi bloggers on this site.

Now, if you persist in libeling me from the (false) security of anonymity, I can and will evict you.

Kate, I doubt you'd be a finalist for the 2006 weblogs if it was shown that you were oppressing liberals for being in the minority on your blog.

As for your support of "democracy" in the Middle East, how does this differ from the Bush plan to bomb them all into freedom?

I'm getting concerned with leftists.

They seem at every opportunity to wish to deny any danger, any threat, except that which they imagine or that of which their own peers tell them.

And I see some of this imagination at work here, and it sounds paranoid. I won't name names, though, out of good manners.

Some leftists are attempting to defame regular folk who disagree with leftist dogma and paranoid imagination. This I've often written of. Seems the subjects are proving my points in real time here.

What is wrong with being genuinely concerned about public safety? How does it logically amount to hating entire groups of persons?

The left is only demonstrating its demagoguery. Unmasked, unhinged...

The police found no criminal activity? That's strange. If I went into a Tim's and threw gasoline around, and ran out without burning myself up, I'd be guilty of a crime called arson.

How do you suppose Tim's insurers are going to handle this? "We need to pay a claim for fire damdage that wasn't accidental, but no crime was committed." I'd bet you the insurance forms say arson on them.

The public should be told who did this. If dude used carbon monoxide in his garage at home, it'd still be news. By putting other people's lives at risk and setting fire to a public company - you'd think we'd at least have the right to the person's name and perhaps a phychological evaluation post-mortem.

Psychological evaluation - typo

Kyla makes an excellent point.

What the f**k is with you, BCL???

It doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a liberal: Cheap shots and trying to goad people is for sub-human life forms. Most people here (including myself) on the right side of the spectrum. The fact that you're on the left (and in the minority here) does not mean that you can throw out the concept of common decency.

Attacking ideas is fine...why do you have to make it personal?

The name of every other high profile suicide in this city has made the papers. A few years ago, a young physician threw herself in front of a subway along with her infant son - no privacy for that family even though it was an obvious case of post partum depression. The same with anyone who jumped from the Bloor street viaduct until the fence was installed. I'm just wondering why this individual is special enough to receive this kind of unprecedented privacy especially since this could have been a greater tragedy than the death of one obviously ill person.

Sentinel: Please don't lump Kate into my critique. She posed a question and has explained why she asked it.

You on the other hand have said that "the dangerous person always get the most consideration, to hell with those at risk from them, the victims". So it begs the question: who are the dangerous people getting the most consideration? And who are the victims?

Since he is dead, it's not out of consideration for him that the police are withholding the name. In fact, as the police themselves have said out of consideration for the family, his name was withheld. The clear implication is that you meant to call the people who are being given the consideration, i.e. the family, dangerous. You seem to be backing off of that now, so I won't press the point any more.

Since there was only one victim of this death, the deceased by his own hands, I'm surprised you consider the people who heard a scream and witnessed a fire to be victims, given that I'm assuming you are a good conservative don't put much faith in people who would whine and complain about "suffering" and "victimization" when there is no physical harm. But maybe you are a different kind of conservative. I have no problem with that and won't press that either.

But then it comes to the view you hold that the police are somehow endangering our safety and security because... um... they... er... won't release the name of a depressed suicide. The police have said there is nothing criminal in the incident and you say there is a threat to our security. So you are saying they are lying or hiding something. That I have an issue with and that accusation I don't withdraw.

Ted
Cerberus

Boudica's right: what's so bloody special about the Tim's decedent that special treatment is accorded whereas it is NOT standard practice to not release the name, regardless of familial wishes?

It is suspicious.

Kate is absolutely right in this. If I rob your house, you have a right to know who I am. By the same principle, if someone commits a crime against the public, the public has a right to ID the perp.

Conversely, if anyone commits suicide privately, then no-one else is harmed, and the privacy is to be respected.

Kyla:

Suicides are not generally considered news. Unless the person is famous or does it in a public way that cannot be ignored...the name and details are almost never published. In this case, the guy's actions could not escape public notice. But, he wasn't famous and didn't write his name on the sidewalk outside...so the police and media try to keep the personal details under wraps. This is not a new concept.

Anyone who lives in a big city (with a subway/LRT system) can tell you that there are a couple of dozen service disruptions per year (note that the public is inconvenienced) when jumpers leap in front of the train. Their names are never released and the act is never mentioned on the news.

Yes, technically speaking, a crime was committed here (actually arson AND suicide are both crimes). But, the offender cannot be "brought to justice" on either count. Therefore, he is not a threat to society...and so the "regular" suicide rules apply. If it's not in the public interest to know (and suicide details never are - unless a homicide was also involved).

"Kate, I'm not sure I agree with you on that one. A solid conservative principle is that crimes (and the people who commit them) should be judged by what the accused intended...and not what the victim (or, in this case, the general public) sufferred."

Bryceman, I'm sure where you obtained your definition of crime, but it sure wasn't in law school.

For example, you punch another person, intending to hurt him. He dies. You are liable for a charge of manslaughter. It's know as the "thin skull" principle...you have to accept your victim as he is, not as you think he is.

Another. You set fire to your business, hoping to collect insurance. The fire spreads to a nearby hotel, and several people die. You're liable to a charge of murder.

Sorry pal, you have it backwards.

"who are the dangerous people getting the most consideration? And who are the victims"

--The criminals do get more consideration than the victims, thanks to the Liberal state regime from which Canadians have suffered. The rights of offenders have long been given priority over the rights of victims.

It's not only about whether actual harm was actually done to others... it's about having placed them at risk that is the actual unacceptable thing.

Oh come on, Bryce, a guy kills himself, the family requests that his name not be released, and a drooling cybermob comes howling demanding that his name be released on the off chance he might be a muslim? Don't talk to me of subhuman. Don't talk to me of "personal either". I've endured all sorts of slights here. You don't here me whining about them. I would appreciate the same kind of courage and self control from your side.

Suicide is not a crime.

It was decriminalized many years ago in order not to prevent suicide attempt survivors from seeking medical care.

Aiding someone else's suicide or advising suicide remains a crime.

Kyla:

I think, by "no criminal aspects of this incident", the police mean there was no criminal intent for arson or other ancillary criminal activity. With all due respect, that seems to be more logical meaning to the answer since suicide by any means (gun, poison, etc.) is obviously technically "criminal".

But since when do ordinary members of the public have a right to information relating to a police investigation? That's what I honestly don't get in the positions being taken here. On what basis do we assume, does anyone make the assumption, that there is an underlying security concern in this suicide as opposed to any of the other hundreds (thousands?) of suicides each year?

(And BTW Sentinel, not seeing a great security/terrorist risk in a suicide is not the same as being oblivious to real security risks. I've been clear over at Cerberus that we all need to wake up to some new realities: here, here and here, for just three examples. So careful with the "unhinged, unmasked demogoguery" and dafamation when you go on whining about "unhinged, unmasked demogoguery" and dafamation.)

Ted
Cerberus

Ted
Cerberus

Big City Lib is here not add to debate, but to get a rise out of the others who are here to discuss issues. He can be described as a trouble maker and general pain in butt.

He is like a court jester only with a nasty tone.
Please evict this fool. He has had ample warning from almost every sane commenter here and now from Kate.

Otherwise, I suggest we all completely ignore him even though the urge to give him a digital bitch-slapping is hard to resist.

One point to BCL. I am brown and don't feel the least bit pursecuted here or anywhere else. Most people judge you by your behaviour once they get passed what you look like. I don't need or want you defending my skin color. I, like most well-adjusted humans can take care of our problems.

Do not feel the necessity to carry the "white Man's Burden" ... Take the rest of your sorry life off and go to Africa where fools like your welcome. You can empty AIDS infested latrines for the Doctors without borders. If you do this, you will be fullfilling your mandate to "help" the less fortunate. We don't need your help to discuss points of interest here.

I'm sure Kate doesn't need my advice, but eviction would be the humane thing. After all, he has endured many slights here, and perhaps he'd be happier if he was assisted with his strange craving for abusive attention.

Remember, Ted, I said I wasn't naming names. It's not my fault you believed that it applied to you. Why would you necessarily assume it meant you?

Geez... whenever I give an opinion wrt the left, individual leftists take it personally. Man!

Whoa Bruce:

I'll go head to head with you on your knowledge of law.

First, the "thin skull principle" (which, from old British common-law says, "you take your victim as you find them") is a part of civil law...it does not in any way apply to criminal law. It is used to justify special damages when a victim suffers injury that another (not-so-susceptible person) would not have suffered. That has no place in this discussion. So, it is you who has this one backwards.

There would likely be a charge of second degree manslaughter...yes. But, the definition of that means that you intended to harm the person...ended up killing them, and the Crown just can't prove that killing was your intent.

Second, your arson example:
It is true that you would face a charge of second degree murder in this case. But the actual charge in the US and Britain is "depraved indifference to human life". This is considered EQUIVALENT to 2nd degree murder. Canada just decided not to make this official distinction. But, at trial, the argument put forth by the Crown would be that you (the offender) should have known better. You see, in the eyes of the offender, the offender should have known what their act could cause (endangering human life) and you did it anyway. This does not weaken what I said...it reinforces it.

With the exception of the recently created "harrassment" crimes genre, I challenge you to show me one case in our criminal law where what the victim suffered is part of the grading of the crime.

I think we have a right to know who this person was
Anderson Says
Kate was just trying to score another cheap innuendo shot which tells you something about here motives/prejudices.

Just like the lefty thinks? I was surprised to see no mention of GWB and the rest of the evil gang.

I don't hate muslim and I can't speak for kate, however I see no prejudice in kate's writings.

We on the Right, just see the danger that Islam
represents to the free world. we don't go around with our heads in the sand, and don't pretend
that there is not a real problem.

Even though you are timid and refuse to see the danger, we will do our best to keep you safe from yourself.

One more point before I cook supper.
I am waiting for a terrorist attack to shake up Canada into understanding what is as stake.

If it weren't for the denial of our beloved Left, we wouldn't have to have people die to make the point.

As it is ... this will be necessary if we and our US neibors are going to bring peace and democracy to the Middle Yeast Infection and them move on to better things.

If there is an attack .. Oh God ... let it be in Toronto. That is where it will do the most good.

Imagine if you will (Twilight Zone music in background) The CN Tower falling directly on top of the CBC building.

(Actually, Bruce, with respect to the law, and not to get too into it, for it to be a crime you to prove both elements the crime - the actus reus and the mens reus.

The actus reus is a simple objective fact: was the "act" expressly prohibited under the Criminal Code. As Chris pointed out, causing your own death is not a criminal act, but causing an unlawful fire is.

The mens reus is a subjective test and does indeed look at the intent of the accused. Did he or she intend to take the prohibited action, the actus reus? If not no crime.

In your examples, there may be a crime but you have to figure out which one. The "thin skull" rule is applicable to civil cases where, indeed, you look at the harm caused from the victims POV. If you hit smacked someone on the head and they died, you intended to hit them - so there is a crime - but you didn't intended to kill them - so it's not murder but manslaughter (akin to reckless disregard). In your other example, if you intend to set fire to your shop - criminal arson - you could be guilty of manslaughter (criminal disregard) but not murder since you did not intend to kill anyone. Some exceptions, like if you intended to burn down a theatre knowing there were people in it but assuming they could get out and that sort of thing.

Sorry for the law class, folks. The lawyer in me couldn't let that one go by.)

bcl: "or lets just say brown skin people" - how telling

Looks like Bryceman beat me to it. Sorry to have to put everyone throw Criminal Law 101 not once but twice this evening!

Ted
Cerberus

through not throw

Time to rest my fingers, obviously.

Thanks for the back-up Ted. I don't suppose Bruce's admission will be forthcoming, though.

Why do I have the impression that some people on this site are not concerned with public safety don't even suffer from paranoia, but instead are panting for evidence to support the sum of their terrorist fears and, hence, their political views?

If you feel the Toronto Police Services (TPS)negligent in their duty to protect the public, you can bring any concerns or information you may have to the attention of the Solicitor General of Ontario. In case it hasn't occured to you, the OPP, RCMP and CSIS would cooperate very closely indeed with the TPS in any terrorist matter, so if there is a conspiracy, it would involve all levels of government including your very own Conservative Feds. You can always start uncovering the conspiracy at the top.

As I suggested to our illustrious Sentinel a few days ago, beat the bush for terrorists, look under all beds for reds, and check everyone you meet for extra-terrestial alien status, since their non-existence has never been proved conclusively either. But don't expect to be taken seriously.

It's "mens rea" and the thin skull rule means you take the victim as you find them. In other words, if your victim has an existing condition, your liability or guilt is not lessened because you had the poor judgment to pick a weak victim.
This has been revisited and expanded by our SCC on several occasions.
Are you a lawyer? I hope not. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Pls insert a comma between "safety" and "don't" in line 2.

Ted, appreciate the factual examination.

Suicides are. Depending on fame or lack of are treated individually by papers. Its not a matter of decency . Its a matter of relevancy. Surly in times like these, they can be more forthright?
All they have to say is A name . If its a suicide no one will judge anyone. Hiding names, just smells to high heaven with something like this on a National level.

Most post here trying to wake people up knowing the longer we sleep the more blood will be spilled. Not hoping for a blood bath. Its you Liberals that have hid your faces in the sand, bare assed. Crying racism while around you 2000 years of history is burning. Its always the left that’s the last to see. This time your actually apologists for these monsters. I bet the Ukrainians while being starved purposely amongst plenty. Ordered by a Stalinist Russia for there own good, to begin collectivization. 7 million dead. I am sure they appreciate the lefts blindness there as well. For Uncle Joe. For there own good.

There is a bigger issue here. That being. Freedom to publish names of suspects, Children that are killers, Actually convicted rapists, Child molesters & all manner of human scum. In the name of privacy of the Family, leftists have hidden societies worst garbage for there so called good. Ignoring the fact most of these families are screaming for attention, at the lack of Justice.

Its the lefts way of protecting there favorite cause. Criminals of any stripe. The law, allowing Serial killers even the vote. Should have caused the public to see the glazed over Socialist mentalities with there real reasons why. They don't want there pet projects (Criminal of the month) named.

We have become so accustomed to this form of Dhimmitude. We don't even realize it . In the end that is the lefts form of submission. Political correctness gone mad. Trying to engineer reality from a sick social theory, into fact. To stop people from seeing the obvious . Just make it taboo to talk about certain subjects. Or call them racists. Never let truth stand in ones way.
Make it up as you go. The Lefts credo. Never answer a question just denounce.

You, like your Islamofacist buddies want us under your submission & to shut up. By you, I mean the Liberal left & there kibbles & bits doggy friends the NDP.

Its time we got real news , if not for community safety than out of a sense that every life has meaning, & violence to one is force applied to all. Only than will we gain our liberty back. We hide victims like the middle ages hide there leapers. Hoping it does not happen to us. We throw them onto the Suttee’s bonfire to burn, than forget. No widows(victims ) allowed. Lets get our liberty back. Lets not allow the censers to win. To make ignorance a virtue. To hide behind euphemisms to misdirect us into the trap of there Dhimmitude.

Justice must be seen to be done for it to be Justice. Enough of the weasels hiding among us.

I am waiting for a terrorist attack to shake up Canada into understanding what is as stake.

How did that work out for Bush in NYC in the last election? I think New Yorkers know very well what is at stake. That doesn't mean they had to buy into what Fearless Leader told them was the solution.

Sorry guys, "thin skull" is as deeply-entrenched in our criminal law as it is in our civil law. Lead case these days is R. v. Smithers 1975. Blaue, (UK 1975) even extended it to a Jehovah's witness who refused a blood transfusion and died from injuries; the court ruled that regardless of whether a transfusion might have saved the victim, the accused was guilty of murder since the assault triggered all subsequent events.

As to the arson case I cited, I have CONVICTED a person of non-capital murder, in Canada, under those circumstances. In the absence of specific mens rea, a court can and does rule that a person engaging in an act that is so reckless that he is deemed to have criminal culpability if something unforeseen results from his original act. In other words, courts rule that the accused SHOULD have anticipated a broad range of consequences that could stem from the initial activity.

Other criminal convictions resulting from lack of specific mens rea? You are approached downtown by a shady character, offered a Rolex watch (not a knock off) for $100. You buy it. You are liable for a conviction for possession of stolen property. Why? It's called "willful blindness". Any reasonable person should know that you can't buy a $6000 timepiece for a hundred bucks. It doesn't matter that you don't know exactly whether the watch was obtained from a fraud, theft, robbery etc...the law imposes penalties if people do not act in a reasonable maner.

OK...no more law lessons, time for dinner...

Sorry if this has been said but generally the police dont release and the newspapers do no print the names of suicides.

Generally done, not out of respect, but out of the desire not to encourage the practice by providing publicity.

There are many sucicides in the city of toronto every week, often they are jumping on the subway tracks, or until recently off of the bloor viaduct on to the Don Valley Parkway.

No reports because they dont want to provide post death "glory"....

Revnant Dream, how about a less incoherent stream-of-consciousness nightmare?

OK Bruce...ummmm...

I haven't reviewed Regina v. Smithers...but I doubt (and would be shocked to see) that the words "thin skull principle" were used in a criminal case.

As for non-specific mens rea and "willful blindness"...I am not arguing against either of those concepts or that they exist. Again, they go towards my initial argument that the crime is graded on what the offender knew or should have known. You had indicated that I had had that backwards. I don't think I did and I think you made my point.

Sorry to go into the legal lessons. But I think that this point is important to make and to understand. Left-wingers rely on the average person not being aware of this distinction and they use that ignorance to try and push forward their ideas that society should accept laws that allow for people to be punished for what the victim says that they suffered.

In the early 90's the NDP government in BC tried to pass a law making it illegal to write or say anything that someone might find offensive. If it weren't for the people who pointed out that laws aren't based on claimed suffering, they might have gotten more support.

The initial argument that I was making in this thread was that, just because this (apparently)disturbed person did something that had an impact on the local public...that doesn't make his crime any "more serious" than it would be if he had flamed himself alone, inside of his own deep underground bunker.

Wow, is there a full moon tonight or what? Everybody just seems so venomous...on both sides of the spectrum. How's about we all take a nice deep breath and inject some civility back into the discussion.

I don't think anyone is right or wrong in this case about whether or not to release the name. It's a case of "the public's right to know" (that has been exercised in the past by the media in relation to suicides) versus the desire not to glorify the suicide or not inflict additional angst amongst the family. I see it as a toss-up.

I think a reasonable case can be made for both sides of the argument...there are some relevant national security issues with a possible attack on a Tim Hortons (as a response to them opening up in Afghanistan), so it would be nice to get more information...at the same time, give the family a break.

Howsabout we just agree to disagree...or is that asking too much? I know it is fun to argue and vent, but...

I agree with Ima, this is a tough call. If someone decides to kill himself by swallowing a bottle of pills in his bathtub, his identity is not really the public's business. But if he say, flies his plane into city hall, his family would have no reasonable right to expect that his identity be withheld.

This Tim Hortons self-immolator is right in the in-between zone. No need to draw a line right down the center and start shooting.

Unless you see bigcitylib...

It is a bit bizarre indeed to have such viciousness over a mere name of a mere nobody.

I've tried to be civil because I frankly just don't get it. I don't get the idea that there is a "right to know" in this case. Is there an example of the police releasing a name of a suicide against the wishes of the family? If there was, then this would be unique. I think the practice of the police is to release the names of the deceased only after the family has been informed and then only if there is no objection. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So the fact that there were elements of the story that looked like a terrorist attack does raise the spectre of an attack, but after the police have laid the issue to bed, to claim that there is something suspicious is, IMHO, to malign the cops who walk the street. They have said clearly and succinctly that there was no criminal activity.

Given the facts we know - a guy poured gasoline on himself in a bathroom and the gasoline was set on fire deliberately - I don't see why exposing the suffering family to public and media scrutiny serves any purpose whatsoever, especially any security purpose.

Ted
Cerberus

Well, I'm completely with Kate on this one.

Very strange that the facts surrounding an explosion IN A PUBLIC PLACE, which was cordoned off for hours, involved security--or fears for the public's safety, at any rate--and which involved one man's death (and there could have been other deaths if the explosion had not been contained) has been more or less hushed up by Toronto authorities "out of respect" for the wishes of the deceased's family.

With all due respect to his family, it seems to me that the public has a right to know who this man was in order to, as someone else pointed out, discover what groups he might or might not have belonged to.

Though I believe in law enforcement and feel we need a lot more of it--and realize what a thankless task policing is, especially when they're more likely to be criticized than praised for a very difficult job--I don't exactly trust the "powers that be" (the mayor and other elected TO officials) to be openly transparent about this case. I can just see them hushing/covering up facts that would be uncomfortable to disclose, like the nationality and/or religious affiliation of this man. It would be just like them to reason something like this: If we tell people that he was ____________, there might be a backlash towards this group, and we can't have that. Though I agree that any hypotheticial backlash would be senseless and against the law, I don't think that out of fear of something which might possibly happen, the mayor and other officials should withhold pertinent informatin from the public ABOUT A VIOLENT ACT THAT TOOK PLACE IN A PUBLIC PLACE. It would also be very pertinent for the public to know that the man, if it is the case, is not a ____________. Whatever the situation, the public needs more info.

More questions are stirred up by the mayor and the police not being forthcoming with the facts, and a soupcon of doubt lingers in one's mind: What else are they not telling us? And why are they not telling us?

BTW bcl: Lay off if you can't be civil. And stop imputing motives and mindsets to those of us not on your wavelength. I could tell you all sorts of things about me that would prove that I am not in the least racist, but it would, as the Bible calls it, be throwing pearls before swine. Sorry to have to be so blunt, but you've pushed a bunch of buttons once too often. Stop being such a nuisance.

Ever think he had a huge insurance policy and they don't pay off for suicide. Family might want to try and get the money.

For pities sake dont kick BCL out Kate, ever since Bloom County and Andy Gapp left the newspapers I need some laughs

Just a question. Why does a family who's loved one died in service of his country have no rights of privacy ... but someone's family who didn't does?

agitfact
But was I wrong? Insults by you not withstanding.
You prove what I say about the lefts creed. Detract, deflect, distract, denounce.(O:}

I agree Ron Rob.Kinsella's blog used to have "John" who morphed into "Joanne" sometime around the time of the election.
Bcl is Kate's "Joanne".
Or maybe its another post election morphing...

Bryceman:

We're going to have to agree to disagree, I suppose, but I enjoyed the discussion.

Embodied below are a couple of excerpts from R. v. Paul Douglas Smithers (SCC 1978; note the reference to thin skull:

... "manslaughter is the causing of death of a human being by an unlawful act, but not an intentional act."

..."If a person goes to rob someone, and he strikes him on the head while robbing him, and he just intends a light tap, but the man has a thin skull and suffers shall we say severe brain injury, it is not a defence for the robber to say he didn't know the man had a thin skull, and that no one else, or few others, would have had such, would have received a brain injury from that tap. A person takes his victim as he finds him. The severity in this particular case or the kick is for you to decide upon. But even if it was not severe, if you find it caused death, the severity is immaterial, but the severity may be something for you to consider as to whether or not it was the cause of death…"

I apologize to any blogee if belabouring this point has induced glassy eyes and/or boredom. (hey, I'm a shameless type "A", I can't let it go .. :)

Ural, I will sugest an answer, but no one will like it.

The family of one who dies in the service of his country is a rich PR mine. They do have a right to privacy, but they might feel that exercising it would deny their loved one the hero status conferred by publicity. Personally, I did not need the news clips of Pte Costall's wife and mother breaking down on receiving the national flag and his beret and medal, but others may have felt their patriotism stroked.

In the case of a suicide, I would leave it up to the family. They are punished enough already, and face a life sentence of guilt and regret. On the other hand, I know the father of a drug addict who killed himself in despair, and the father went public and lectured youth and parents' groups about drugs.

Oh, and if you want any more references to thin skull in Canadian judgments, I've got 788 of them...

Revnant, if you expressed opinions clearly, we could discuss whether they were wrong or not, but I am not going to try to deal with an incoherent and partially incomprehensible stream of statements. "Incoherent" and "partially incomprehensible" are accurate descriptions, not insults. And I was in fact hoping that you would clarify your rant.

Spare me the reflex "leftist" accusations; they reveal less about me than about you. Do believe what you must, as I am sure you will.

To bigcitylib - just a thought but its highly unlikely you'd see a right wing uprising in Toronto for any reason. Can you think of one where the two or three right wingers in Toronto would stage an uprising?

Whether or not the combusted one intended to fry himself is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that a man entered the most iconic of Canadian businesses of the past decade, one that has been in the news for several reasons lately (IPO, Afghanistan), at one of the busiest intersections in the country, with a gascan, and ignited it inside. If he survived, his name would certainly not be kept secret, as he would become one of the country's most notorious criminal defendants in the months and years to come.

Kate is absolutely right, we have a right to know his name. Call me what you will, but I think it is very important to know if this was a young Muslim male. Why is it not a distinct possibility that this guy ignited himself by accident while attempting to set up a terrorist act? Just because the Toronto Police declare it was a suicide of an anonymous man, are you ready to just believe it and move on?

Ural: "Just a question. Why does a family who's loved one died in service of his country have no rights of privacy ... but someone's family who didn't does?"

Who says they don't? Can you give me an example where a family asked the military not to release their names? The example isn't relevant because the army has different protocols than the police. The police followed ordinary protocol having determined there were no reasons not to.

I just find it quite bizarre, to be frank, that there is this conspiracy rising up that this guy was some sort of terrorist and, within an hour of the incident, a dozen police officers, the Chief, the mayor, the feds have all got together to conspire to keep this silent, hush hush as some are saying up above.

Most cases of suicide do not have the name released. Where does this "right to know" the details of a police investigation come from?

In this case the police concluded there was no security threat and that the family, who would have been hounded by the media and, clearly, by conservative bloggers if the name was released, deserved to grieve in piece.

Sometimes this place just goes kinda weird and wonky. Like the tinfoil hats over at rabble where everything is a conspiracy of some sort.

Strange reaction to what are pretty self-evident facts.

Ted
Cerberus

agitfact,

Your comments are the perfect reason why you should spend more time masturbating.

Thats "peace" dammit not "piece" unless your trying to make bad puns Ted.

Ted,

Ditto.

NCF TO: I'm fully ready to believe that terrorists are complete and utter idiots, but even this case would stretch the limits of a terrorists idiocy.

Pouring gasoline on your body... in a closed off room... in a closed off cell within that room... without enough gasoline to cause an explosion... when no one is nearby... on a quiet warm Sunday afternoon when few were around...

Cripes, I only wish they made more terrorists like that!

Ted
Cerberus

Touche, Douglas. The fingers and the brain are tired, but the work on my desk is now done.

G'night.

Ted
Cerberus

And by the way, the TRUTH is that Krispy Kreme is behind it all: they set him up and then started planting rumours that this was a terrorist threat being covered up by the Toronto police, the Ontario Solicitor General's Office and Stockwell Day (as Minister of Public Safety) and even got the second Tim Horton's store to shut down for a few hours the same day. Their evil American plot is to convince Canadians that they take their lives into their hands every single time they step through the door to order a double double with a box of timbits to go.

Ted
Cerberus

Iz Ok.Ted I wuz jus funnin ya.
Goodnite.

Aqitfact: "Incoherent" and "partially incomprehensible" are accurate descriptions, not insults.

Common sense isn't your strongest suit is it? Revant tells it like it is. Whether I agree with him or not, he is at least sincere. Just because you don't get or don't agree with Revant's points, he's incoherent and partially incomprehensible. Don't waste a good man's opinion by trying to make him explain himself. If you didn't get the first time, your not ever going to. Your just not programmed to.

"In this case the police concluded there was no security threat
and that the family,
who would have been hounded by the media and, clearly,
by conservative bloggers
if the name was released, deserved to grieve in piece[sic]."

Ted:
I understand from what I have read
that the family have returned to their home
in 'south Asia'
(where they can grieve in peace)

I'd just like to make the following observation:

The leftists (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you don't like that terrible epithet, but... boo-hoo!) seem obsessed with trying to convince the people that there's nothing to this but some sad guy who took his own life... move on...

As if the leftists have seen absolute, 100%, a posteriori conclusive proof to back up their adamant statements and belittlements of those who genuinely believe in erring on the side of public security.

Nothing new on the part of leftists.

Just an observation. No need to crap on me for it.

Grace Adams, I'm sorry, but I lack the mental deficiencey that would make that good man's sincere rant clear.

Sentinel, since you can't show the "absolute, 100%, a posteriori proof" that extra-terrestials don't exist, you should keep looking for them.

"Sometimes this place just goes kinda weird and wonky." You are so right, Ted.

I just find it quite bizarre, to be frank, that there is this conspiracy rising up that this guy was some sort of terrorist and, within an hour From Ted (12:05 a.m.): I just find it quite bizarre, to be frank, that there is this conspiracy rising up that this guy was some sort of terrorist and, within an hour of the incident, a dozen police officers, the Chief, the mayor, the feds have all got together to conspire to keep this silent, hush hush as some are saying up above."

Please don't play the "conspiracy" card, Ted. There is no attempt to suggest a conspiracy (doo-doo, doo-doo), simply a reasonable expectation that public officials charged with the safety and protection of their citizenry fully disclose the details of a most bizarre incident in one of--if not the--largest city in Canada.

As for your comment, ""Most cases of suicide do not have the name released. Where does this 'right to know' the details of a police investigation come from?"

You're right; we never hear--nor should we--about most suicides, because THEY ARE PRIVATE EVENTS. In the case of this man, his successful attempt to immolate himself took place in A PUBLIC PLACE WHERE HE PUT A NUMBER OF OTHERS POTENTIALLY AT RISK AND AT ONE OF THE MAIN INTERSECTIONS OF ONE OF CANADA'S LARGEST CITIES.

If 9/11 had never happened, if we weren't participating in a war in Afghanistan, if there weren't threats against our way of life being monitored daily in the U.S.--and, one hopes, in Canada as well, given that we are on Osama Bin Laden's list of countries that need to be taught a lesson--this suicide would be just a blip on the news of the day.

As it is, circumstances have changed since 9/11 and reality dictates not talk of conspiracy--your word--but sober, vigilant attentiveness to what is going on around us.

If the officials who are witholding this man's name and the full circumstances surrounding his death are not giving the public the information we need to know for our protection and the protection of our children, then they are not fulfilling their public duty to keep us abreast of events that impact our lives.

And in order to dispell the feelings of many that they ARE witholding full disclosure for reasons known only to them--but suspected by many of us--they need to tell us a lot more and not hide behind the "respect for the deceased's family" as the reason they are withholding his name.

What don't you get about this? It was not a private act. If he had wanted it to be a private act, he would have stayed home.

There was no charge leveied on the estate ( and should have been as suicide is illegal and so is arson) so the police can limit public access to their investigation. The recent "biker" murders is anoither example of the closed mouth policy of police.

Ya know when it comes right down to it the police have always been restrictive of public access to police info and so has the court with their recent "pubic black outs".

Seems both the police function and the justice industry think the public are too unsavory to be informed let aloe involved in the law enforcement and jury systems.....serfs are kept in a "need to know only" basis.

WHY NOT READ THE OBITUARIES EVERY DAY IN TORONTO NEWSPAPERS?
I realize the family might not put in an obituary but most do.
Look for date of death, suddenly, no visitation etc.
BCL will surely be able to find it.

Suicides go into an information black hole and never re-emerge. No one really knows why. We all know they walk in front of Go trains and throw themselves in front of subways etc. but nobody ever speaks of it. TABOO. Who decides societal taboo's anyway?

I think Kate (and many people on this Blog) yearn for an act of terrorism to justify their hatred for Muslims (or lets just say brown skin people because I doubt they could tell Muslims from from anyone else that origonated in that part of the world).

I suspect it is you who truly yearns for such an act, so you can throw yourself even more wholeheartedly into self-righteous denunciations of "racists!" and take great pleasure in the frisson such "speaking truth to power" gives you.

Face it: as I've said before, leftists - or more specifically, Guilty White (big city) Liberals - are motivated in part by a desperate desire to be thought of as cool and righteous by non-whites, and indeed if most Muslims were pinker than Presbyterians you'd probably see the issues here more clearly.

Last month 2 people were caught dumping manure on Emerson office. Police caught them. No names were ever released. All we knew were they came from New Westminster.

What were the privacy concerns there?

Marc Lepine and his real name comes up again. How come this is never bandied about in the press?

Young offenders too never have there names broadcast. Who does this protect? Family members of the criminals?

Free and open discussion in our society means exactly that. Little by little pieces of the puzzle are obscured. Like Lepine, what is the cause of his violence and is it endemic to Canadian society or was it a problem brought here by an immigrant father?

The leftists place this game to further their own ends. They have created the victim industry.
enough

I've always had trouble with other people deciding what I should and should not know, see, hear, read, etc (within reason). In Canada the media seems to be too hyper-sensitive (read politically correct) for my liking. Are our police forces much different?

Do you think his name will ever be released and if not, why?

Of course we have a right to know. I was born in Toronto and I've lived here all my life. Having become the great left wing bastion it's become, based on assholes like 'big city liberal' moving here, we've lost many rights due to political correctness. A killer at large is described without colour (unless of course he's white), so nobody - the police, the media, etc - will be tagged with being 'racist.' Meanwhile the killer is free to kill again. That's why, over the last years, few violent crimes in this city have been solved. Fantino had statistics on what ethnic group is overwhelmingly responsible for most of the gun murders in Toronto - right down to what country they immigrated from. He wasn't allowed to release the report. More people died. More continue to die.

Yes, it is our right to know.

Statistics don't lie. The Liberal/left does. And because of that, they are an accessory to the crimes commited by the criminals they protect. Let the victims blood be on their hands.

You got something to say 'big city liberal?' Say it to my face. I'm waiting for you to reply - where and when?

Finally the real Italian Mafia have pushed the Liberal mafia out of the CBCpravda headlines.

The real mobster arrested in Corleone - after 43 years in hiding.

when was Trudeau first elected??

I don't know if we have a right to know the name of this man but we certainly have a right to QUESTION.

I can't believe I hear all these people calling the police "leftist". Why are you questioning the methods of the police? Do you not believe in law and order in society? Shouldn't we leave the investigfation to the good judgment of the police? As Ted has pointed out, if there is indeed a terrorism connection to this suicide and it is being withheld from the public, doesn't Stockwell Day's department have something to do with that? I'm not saying that you're wrong in wanting more information, but don't blame "leftists" for everything that ails you.

I hope that the next time a person not named mohammed uses an accellerant to torch a public restaurant BCL is in the next stall and can't get out.

Maybe his last words could be to tell Ali that he's sensitive and undersatanding.

"Kate, I rather doubt that its anybody in Saskatchewan's business. And I do not see a right wing uprising in Toronto over the matter. Why don't you go back to your fields and mind your own business?"

Why doesn't BigCorruptLiberal find an effiminate pansy big city left wing blog and prance around minding his own business I wonder.

"By the way, I hear Calvert plans on footing the bill for 5,000 Muslims to immigrate to Saskatchewan every year where I hear many plan on taking up residence on the western outskirts of Saskatoon. There goes Kates neighbourhood.

Posted by: anderson at April 10, 2006 07:07 PM "

Anderdumb why don't you just move to a Muslim country like Syria Egypt etc etc and then send glowing reviews of how wonderful your life is and convince Kate to emmigrate. If you think its so good to bring them here in my view the places they come from must be positively wonderful for you to go to. The winters might be warmer than Saskatchewan too.

Anderson after they make the laws here and they are trying is this what you want?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16800

Who was Mr. "X", late of the donut shutup?

The Canadian public, including "leftists", need to know the name of Mr. "X", late of the donut shutup. +

Which one of these should not be named in/by the MSM?

"The other four accused -- Eric Niessen, 45, and Kelly Morris, 56, both of Monkton, Ont., Brett Gardner, 21, of no fixed address and Frank Mather, 32, who lived with Kellestine --"
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13249.31

There's a lot of comments that were getting a bit out of hand so I didn't read them all. I apologize if this has been mentioned before.
The media (at least it was when I was a part of it) is hesitant to cover suicides and I think that might be the central factor here. The fact that it was a public incident and caused public damage is probably the only reason why it was covered.
Including names in a suicide story isn't the norm. Unless his intention was anything other than ending his life then there is no reason to release the name, other than adding elements which may not have been actual factors in the incident. Not every muslim is a bomber and not every asian is a gang member. A lot of times they're just regular people who may convince themselves that the world won't miss them.
There were enough suicides when I was in the media that never got covered. One that did was a local high profile restaurant owner and we danced around that one a bit.

"not every muslim is a bomber"

Not every muslim is a terrorist. But most terrorists are muslim.

Regardless of whether the guy was a muslim or not - and even if it was a suicide, does it not still raise questions?

Like, why was he commiting suicide with a fire bomb in the bathroom of a packed Tim Hortons?

And how is this not a crime, beyond property damage? Is suicide no longer a crime?

Irwin...suicide was never a crime. Reason being, a successful suicide resulted in the death of the potential accused, and you can't charge someone who's dead with a crime. Attempted suicide used to be a crime.

Re "right to QUESTION" - of course, but we replaced questions with insinuations with Kate's first post in this thread.

Re "the Canadian public ... need to know" - what? That this was or was not a terrorist act, that there is or is not a consequent threat to public safety, or the family name and address for sympathy cards? The first has been answered by competent authority, the answer to the second follows from the first, so maybe try the last.

I've sugggested this before, but perhaps not clearly enough: if you feel wronged by the Toronto police, get onto the Solicitor General of Ontario. On the other hand, if your suspicions are that great, you might try a sympathetic conservative ear in the Hon. Stockwell Day. Let us know how you made out.

Does anyone get the feeling the fair city of Toronto isn't releasing info about the Tim Horton's suicide mainly to protect the city's reputation?

Anyone remember T.O.'s irresponsibile SAR's rhetoric that lulled many into a false sense of security and may have in no small part contributed to the deaths of health care workers that caught the disease? I guess the public's need to know was about as important back then as it is now.

Seconds, anyone?

"Any guesses as to the honouree?" Mr. "X"?

Mud & donuts free. +

Monday, April 10, 2006

Press Freedom Day?

From The Hill Times's "Parliamentary Calendar" (April 10th):

WEDNESDAY,MAY 3
World Press Freedom Day—The National Press Club
will hold a luncheon reception to celebrate World Press
Freedom Day with an awards ceremony. Guest speakers
include Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff and Matthew Fisher.
For more information, please call 613-233-5641.

Any guesses as to the honouree?

Posted by Russ Kuykendall on April 10, 2006 at 09:23 PM
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/

It has not made one bit of difference from the first flash of news who the guy is and what his name is. What matters is that the media and or the government decides what we can and cannot and must not know, not on rational grounds but because they generally infantalise the population of Canada. The elitist and gnostic views of the intelligentsia today are no different from those of any other time. But the people are generally less inclined to accept that elitist view and infantalisation.

The public has the right to know the public business, and if a private family have a private tragedy that occurs in public, it's a public affair. The private person has no right that supercedes the public in public affairs. There is no innate privilege for those who might claim to have some exceptional attributes to claim anything from the public in this regard. Why should there be one set of laws for one family and another set of laws for a different family? If i don't like the laws as they are, I suffer if I break them. No one, regardless of the lack of sense behind it, elected me king.

But the true point is not this case of exceptionalism, it is the infantalisation of the public -- again.

"This man committed suicide in a manner and place that put the public and the employees there at huge risk, closing down a large part of a major metropolitan city in a wider terrorism scare. His family's wishes should not trump the facts."

No facts have been "trumped."

"Public safety and security are more important than privacy."

"Boudica's right: what's so bloody special about the Tim's decedent that special treatment is accorded whereas it is NOT standard practice to not release the name, regardless of familial wishes?"

Bullshit. Don't know where you get your idea about "standard practice" from; a fantasy in your mind perhaps?

"I am waiting for a terrorist attack to shake up Canada into understanding what is as stake."

Hmmm.. he REALLY IS hoping for one!

"Afterthought - has anyone else forgotten the March 8 announcement of the Tim Horton's opening at the Canadian base at Kandahar? And it's unreasonable for people to ask who was responsible for a gasoline fueled explosion in one of their restaurants in Toronto less than a month later?"

Hey, anyone notice that this was done to Tim Hortons, at the same time as their Roll Up The Rim to Win contest, while Country Style have their own prizes under the rim at the same time??

Corporate terrorism, anyone?

"With all due respect to his family, it seems to me that the public has a right to know who this man was in order to, as someone else pointed out, discover what groups he might or might not have belonged to."

You mean like what Masonic lodge he might have attended? What Pentecostal Church he might have been a member at? Which Knights of Columbus he did or did not claim membership in?

Define public safety and security. You think you have a right to know every person that has the common cold right this very minute?

"Anyone who places the public at risk is dangerous"

Stupidness. You put yourself and others at "risk" simply by staying alive everyday.