Two Albertans charged with murdering 4 mounties...

[jar_e]

Interesting twist in the Mayerthorpe murders....two males have been charged with first - degree murder.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/...e-charges.html

Two Alberta men have been charged with first-degree murder in the 2005 fatal shootings of four Mounties near Mayerthorpe in northern Alberta, police said Sunday.
Dennis Keegan Rodney Cheesman, 23, and Shawn William Hennesey, 28, both of Barrhead were each charged with four counts of first-degree murder, police said.

My guess would be they were the driver(s) that drove Roszko back to his property.

[Resolute 14]

First degree murder would indicate that these two acted with the intention of killing the mounties. I have a hard time believing that those will be the charges these two will ultimately face.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

First degree murder would indicate that these two acted with the intention of killing the mounties. I have a hard time believing that those will be the charges these two will ultimately face.

From the article...

RCMP Cpl. Wayne Oakes told CBC News that the two men are accused of being a party to the offence for aiding and abetting gunman James Roszko, who ambushed the four young RCMP officers on March 3, 2005, in the police force's biggest single-day loss in more than 100 years.

Also...first degree murder is the only charge available if a police officer is involved...

From Section 231 of the Criminal Code.

(4) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is
(a) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties;

[Resolute 14]

No, I'm aware that the only murder charge available when a cop is killed is Murder 1. But aiding and abetting is considerably different from murder. Curious to see what evidence comes t light here.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

No, I'm aware that the only murder charge available when a cop is killed is Murder 1. But aiding and abetting is considerably different from murder. Curious to see what evidence comes t light here.

Aiding and abbeting is not a seperate crime. It merely makes you a party to a crime. If you are found party to the offence then you are also charged with that offence. Doesnt matter if it is murder or shoplifting.

So yes if the proper mens rea is found these people will be guilty of first degree murder.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by blankall

Aiding and abbeting is not a seperate crime. It merely makes you a party to a crime. If you are found party to the offence then you are also charged with that offence. Doesnt matter if it is murder or shoplifting.

So yes if the proper mens rea is found these people will be guilty of first degree murder.

That's right, but since these guys were police officers, there's even more to it.

Similar circumstances, without police officers:

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...3rcs4-573.html

The twist here though is that, the deceased are police officers.

The usual issue is whether the accomplices participated in something a reasonable person would know could lead to harm (manslaughter, usually), or if they knowingly participated in something a reasonable person would know that death was likely (murder).

But since these are police officers who were killed, maybe the mens rea doesn't matter in the situation of an accomplice.

Interesting, if any criminal lawyers would like to comment I'm curious.

Edit: The length of time that has passed since that incident makes these charges unusual, and even suspect. Still, given the gravity of the offences you could see why the Crown would want to charge anyone even remotely connected with the murders.

Further Edit: Reading the criminal code, it seems the mens rea requirement is removed for a conviction of murder with intent where the victim is an officer. My guess is, that if you do something that would convict you of being an accomplice to manslaughter (i.e. causing harm) and if you knew the victims were officers, you can be convicted of first degree murder. I could see a constitutional issue brewing here. The basic point is correct however, which is, being an accomplice does not make you guilty of a lesser crime than the actual perpetrator.

[urban1]

I bet these charges get tossed. This was a tragedy but I bet there was a lot of over eager cops willing to push the limits of the law on this one in order to get someone to pay.

[blankall]

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I did to very well in my crim class in law school.

Basically the issue is this. You cannot charge someone with murder without showing some degree of mens rea. You cannot deny someone of their basic charter rights to liberty of person under sec 7 of the charter without proving some kind of mens rea. The degree of mens rea required is relative to the nature of the crime and the punishment. Anytime there is an automatic jail sentence you will need to show some mens rea.

This case is complicated in the fact that murder, unlike, manslaughter carries an automatic life sentence. The law seems to be quite clear that murder is the only possible conviction here.

I think it is very possible that these people could be charged with murder. Some degree of intention will most likely be needed in order to justify a life sentence. This will depend on how forseeable it was for their actions to lead to the deaths of these police officers. For instance, if these people supplied them with guns, I think it is very likely that they will be convicted.