Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

fredr123 · 08-01-2008, 01:06 PM

RE: CCW

I have had the opportunity on a few ocassions to fire a variety of hand guns at a range. Now, I've never received any formal training with firearms and I don't fire them on a regular basis. That experience was a huge eye-opener for me. All those TV shows and movies depicting the good guy picking off a bad guy from 200 yds with a single shot from his pistol are completely bunk. Those annoying generic minions who shoot wildly and may as well be firing blanks is probably more representative of the vast majority of people out there.

Even with extensive gun training, a person with a concealed weapon on that bus would have to contend with 30+ screaming passengers rushing around, a moving bus and a lot of nerves and adrenalin. In order to make any difference and improve the situation from what actually occurred (disable the bad guy before he kills the victim), time is of the essence. Factoring all these things together, I bet if you run the scenario a thousand times you might be successful once. In all the other situations you are probably wounding or killing one or more of fellow passengers. You have nothing to show for your heroics but an increase in the body count and innocent blood on your hands.

RE: Fight or flight

Earlier this summer, we were houseboating with our daughter and my inlaws. My mother in law thought she heard a bear or some other animal in the bushes behind our campfire one night. When she ran inside the house, we all conspired to pretend we heard it too and see how she reacted. About fifteen minutes later, my brother in law screams out randomly "OHMYGODTHERESABEARAAAAAAAAAAARGH!" We all knew it was coming except for my mother in law who proceeded to push her family members out of the way, including her only grandaugher (my 16 month old), in order to save herself.

What's the point? I bet 99% of the population would react similarly. When the chips are down, it's not women and children first; it's me first and get the f out of my way.

I've been in a few emergency situations in my life none of which approach anything nearly as horrific as what ocurred on that bus. In those cases, I think I reacted pretty well. I like to think I'm cool under pressure. At the same time I am almost 100% sure I would have been among those on that bus rushing for the exit. I can think of maybe two people (my wife and kid) that I would willingly do anything, including facing imminent peril and certain death, in order to protect (even then, consider my mother in law above). The rest of you are hosed. It's not cowardice, it's just an honest human reaction.

RE: Talking to the police, right to silence

If a police officer ever wants to ask you questions, you need to decide for yourself whether or not you want to cooperate. I would suggest you watch the video link I posted earlier. It's a lecture by Professor James Duane, a lawyer and professor in Virginia. While there are some subtle differences between US law and Canadian law, he raises a lot of interesting points of universal application.

I won't fault the killer for refusing to say anything at his first court appearance this morning. There's nothing to be gained for him by talking. It's not as though he can say something to convince the police or the Crown not proceed with charges. There's nothing he can say to convince the judge to NOT remand him in custody.

To the poster who suggested that the law should require the accused to refute charges against him, I simply cannot agree. Our justice system, and that of a great many other states, is founded on several fundamental principles of justice and fairness. Two of those principles that go hand in hand are that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that the accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. To require the accused to refute Crown evidence at a criminal trial would run afoul of both of those principles.

If upon the close of the Crown's case, it has presented solid evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused then the accused runs the risk of being convicted on that evidence if he does not testify. That's his choice to make. So long as the evidence is solid and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been proved, then I have no problem with a conviction in that case. If the evidence is equivocal or maybe-kinda-sorta makes it look as though the accused is guilty, then drawing and adverse inference from the accused's failure to testify should not be permitted. The Crown needs to make out its case without help from the accused.

RE: Second degree murder

According to the world's foremost authority on Canadian criminal law:

In Canada, murder is classified as either first or second degree.

First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation.
Second degree murder is all murder which is not first degree murder.

First degree murder is a small subset of the whole set of murders. Every murder that isn't first degree murder is second degree murder. As far as punishment goes, both degrees carry a sentence of mandatory life imprisonment. With a first degree conviction, the offender is not eligible for parole for 25 years. With second degree, you can apply after 10.

Aside from that subtle difference, the other thing to keep in mind is that second degree murder is much easier to prove. You just have to prove a murder was committed by the accused. Boom. Done. Let's have a cigar and scotch on the balcony. Want to have a sleep over? To prove first degree murder, you have to prove not only that the accused committed a murder but that one of the eight other elements identified above was also present. A lot of those elements are complicated to prove. Yah, it might not be too hard to show that an accused killed a police officer but it can be a giant PITA to prove that the murder was committed while the accused was also committing intimidation.

08-01-2008, 01:06 PM	#198
fredr123 Franchise Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Exp:	RE: CCW I have had the opportunity on a few ocassions to fire a variety of hand guns at a range. Now, I've never received any formal training with firearms and I don't fire them on a regular basis. That experience was a huge eye-opener for me. All those TV shows and movies depicting the good guy picking off a bad guy from 200 yds with a single shot from his pistol are completely bunk. Those annoying generic minions who shoot wildly and may as well be firing blanks is probably more representative of the vast majority of people out there. Even with extensive gun training, a person with a concealed weapon on that bus would have to contend with 30+ screaming passengers rushing around, a moving bus and a lot of nerves and adrenalin. In order to make any difference and improve the situation from what actually occurred (disable the bad guy before he kills the victim), time is of the essence. Factoring all these things together, I bet if you run the scenario a thousand times you might be successful once. In all the other situations you are probably wounding or killing one or more of fellow passengers. You have nothing to show for your heroics but an increase in the body count and innocent blood on your hands. RE: Fight or flight Earlier this summer, we were houseboating with our daughter and my inlaws. My mother in law thought she heard a bear or some other animal in the bushes behind our campfire one night. When she ran inside the house, we all conspired to pretend we heard it too and see how she reacted. About fifteen minutes later, my brother in law screams out randomly "OHMYGODTHERESABEARAAAAAAAAAAARGH!" We all knew it was coming except for my mother in law who proceeded to push her family members out of the way, including her only grandaugher (my 16 month old), in order to save herself. What's the point? I bet 99% of the population would react similarly. When the chips are down, it's not women and children first; it's me first and get the f out of my way. I've been in a few emergency situations in my life none of which approach anything nearly as horrific as what ocurred on that bus. In those cases, I think I reacted pretty well. I like to think I'm cool under pressure. At the same time I am almost 100% sure I would have been among those on that bus rushing for the exit. I can think of maybe two people (my wife and kid) that I would willingly do anything, including facing imminent peril and certain death, in order to protect (even then, consider my mother in law above). The rest of you are hosed. It's not cowardice, it's just an honest human reaction. RE: Talking to the police, right to silence If a police officer ever wants to ask you questions, you need to decide for yourself whether or not you want to cooperate. I would suggest you watch the video link I posted earlier. It's a lecture by Professor James Duane, a lawyer and professor in Virginia. While there are some subtle differences between US law and Canadian law, he raises a lot of interesting points of universal application. I won't fault the killer for refusing to say anything at his first court appearance this morning. There's nothing to be gained for him by talking. It's not as though he can say something to convince the police or the Crown not proceed with charges. There's nothing he can say to convince the judge to NOT remand him in custody. To the poster who suggested that the law should require the accused to refute charges against him, I simply cannot agree. Our justice system, and that of a great many other states, is founded on several fundamental principles of justice and fairness. Two of those principles that go hand in hand are that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that the accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. To require the accused to refute Crown evidence at a criminal trial would run afoul of both of those principles. If upon the close of the Crown's case, it has presented solid evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused then the accused runs the risk of being convicted on that evidence if he does not testify. That's his choice to make. So long as the evidence is solid and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been proved, then I have no problem with a conviction in that case. If the evidence is equivocal or maybe-kinda-sorta makes it look as though the accused is guilty, then drawing and adverse inference from the accused's failure to testify should not be permitted. The Crown needs to make out its case without help from the accused. RE: Second degree murder According to the world's foremost authority on Canadian criminal law: In Canada, murder is classified as either first or second degree. First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation. Second degree murder is all murder which is not first degree murder. First degree murder is a small subset of the whole set of murders. Every murder that isn't first degree murder is second degree murder. As far as punishment goes, both degrees carry a sentence of mandatory life imprisonment. With a first degree conviction, the offender is not eligible for parole for 25 years. With second degree, you can apply after 10. Aside from that subtle difference, the other thing to keep in mind is that second degree murder is much easier to prove. You just have to prove a murder was committed by the accused. Boom. Done. Let's have a cigar and scotch on the balcony. Want to have a sleep over? To prove first degree murder, you have to prove not only that the accused committed a murder but that one of the eight other elements identified above was also present. A lot of those elements are complicated to prove. Yah, it might not be too hard to show that an accused killed a police officer but it can be a giant PITA to prove that the murder was committed while the accused was also committing intimidation. Last edited by fredr123; 08-01-2008 at 01:22 PM.