Gas Stations Gas and Dash Incident

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Would like to know what it is that this POS says in the video.

I'm sure his parents are very proud of him right now...I assume the 16 year old rolled on him, he should for sure be charged with theft and accessory. Isn't that what the diplomat's sun is being charged with on Florida? He wasn't there when all the shooting took place, but was waiting in the car and knew criminal activity was taking place.

I never had a car stolen in Manitoba, but this is my car a months go. The 26 year old man who stole it, has a lengthy history of this kind of activity, and was released 12 hours after it happened. He was only charged with possession of stolen property. They almost killed a mother and daughter.

That 's brutal Jets4life. It's like it's too much trouble to actually punish criminals anymore.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Disappointed the 16 year old was not charged. He is a party to the offence. He should be charged.

Also I absolutely despise the YCJA. That POS should be named and shown.

Alas, pumping gas is not a criminal act.

and pumping gas is all he did.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Alas, pumping gas is not a criminal act.

and pumping gas is all he did.

Stealing gas is and he was the one that did the act of pumping the gas without the intent of paying for it so he did steal it.

He was also in the vehicle when they ran over the victim and he didn't try to prevent it, therefore in my mind he's an accessory to a criminal act.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Stealing gas is and he was the one that did the act of pumping the gas without the intent of paying for it so he did steal it.

He was also in the vehicle when they ran over the victim and he didn't try to prevent it, therefore in my mind he's an accessory to a criminal act.

I'm not defending the 16 year old, but we don't have the whole story. You can possibly say either of those things with certainty.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

The 20 year old kid is, and was, likely on drugs... so if he is a "piece of work" it could be the drugs. Not excusing it- just saying.

And are they brothers or cousins or something? Is that why the 20 year old's name isn't published??

Zero relevance to me, Being on drugs is zero excuse in my books, just like drinking and driving and killing someone is zero excuse.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Alas, pumping gas is not a criminal act.

and pumping gas is all he did.

One would might think that just driving a vehicle isn't a criminal act. But certainly the driver of a "get away" car for a bank heist is clearly an accessory. Let alone the murder that was committed in the midst of the crime.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Stealing gas is and he was the one that did the act of pumping the gas without the intent of paying for it so he did steal it.

He was also in the vehicle when they ran over the victim and he didn't try to prevent it, therefore in my mind he's an accessory to a criminal act.

I'm not defending the punk, but you aren't going to get a conviction against him for gasoline theft when he wasn't the one driving. and I doubt they would be able to prove that he was an accessory.

Besides, I would presume that his testimony will help convict the driver, who was the one that ran down and killed the clerk. I'd say that's worth giving up on the 30 hours of community service he would get through AMP for stealing gas.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Igster

I'm not defending the 16 year old, but we don't have the whole story. You can possibly say either of those things with certainty.

Did he know that the vehicle was stolen?

Did he know that the gas was stolen?

did he know that the victim was brutally run down?

[rain_e]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Did he know that the vehicle was stolen?

Did he know that the gas was stolen?

did he know that the victim was brutally run down?

Didn't he pump the gas and then jump in the back seat of the truck then it took off? That would mean yes he knew the gas was stolen.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Did he know that the vehicle was stolen?

Did he know that the gas was stolen?

did he know that the victim was brutally run down?

I don't know, do you?

If you do you should probably go let the cops know.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Did he know that the vehicle was stolen?

Do you know for sure? Maybe the idiot driver picked him up saying "Look at my new ride?"

Did he know that the gas was stolen?

Maybe the driver told him to pump the gas and he would go in and pay. Then the kid jumped in and the guy drove off?

did he know that the victim was brutally run down?

After it happened, yeah. Do we know he wasn't screaming at the driver to stop?

Again, not defending, but you're making assumptions based on being angry. I'm angry with the driver too for this absolutely brutal, violent act, but we don't have the whole story yet.

[polak]

What's the age that they say that kids are not old enough to understand the consequences of their actions? 14?

That's when the youth act should be limited to. Every single 16 year old understands the consequences of breaking the law. If not, then why the #### are they allowed to drive a car? Plenty of consequences there.

####ing bull####.

[burn_this_city]

Dbag driver was out on bail already.

[llwhiteoutll]

Weren't people on here complaining about Harper trying to increase punishments under the CCoC, introduce mandatory minimums and shouting their praise of the SCC when mandatory minimums were struck down?

Now everyone is complaining that the law won't do enough to punish the criminal who committed this crime.

[polak]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Weren't people on here complaining about Harper trying to increase punishments under the CCoC, introduce mandatory minimums and shouting their praise of the SCC when mandatory minimums were struck down?

Now everyone is complaining that the law won't do enough to punish the criminal who committed this crime.

Increasing the sentences on drug crimes is dumb.

Increasing the sentences on murder? Not dumb.

Not all crimes are equal.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Weren't people on here complaining about Harper trying to increase punishments under the CCoC, introduce mandatory minimums and shouting their praise of the SCC when mandatory minimums were struck down?

Now everyone is complaining that the law won't do enough to punish the criminal who committed this crime.

People fought against mandatory minimums because they affected people who are not violent criminals and ideally should not be incarcerated (like possessing small amounts of narcotics).

No reason why not having mandatory minimums precludes the driver from getting hit with a murder charge. I really don't understand why they didn't charge him with that. Isn't it common practice to charge the absolute max/worst offence possible? This guy should be in prison, he is a violent criminal.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Dbag driver was out on bail already.

As in he's out on bail from this incident? Or he was out on bail for something else when this occurred?

[habernac]

on bail from a previous Jan incident of dangerous driving in a stolen vehicle. Had no license or insurance

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Something else. Earlier this year he as charged with dangerous driving, stolen vehicle, no license. Can't link to it right now, there's an article on the CBC site.

[habernac]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/11...gerous-driving