Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by J pold

Someone in the facebook group mentioned that they where playing Rambo as the in house movie, is that true?

Zorro according to the National Post, but I don't think that is really relevant...

[pepper24]

This story is still bugging me even a day after especially hearing about the victim.

[OILFAN #81]

So he's being charged with second degree murder? What's the average sentence for that?

"Hodgson said the charge of second-degree murder was selected as appropriate given the evidence currently available against Li."

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by pepper24

This story is still bugging me even a day after especially hearing about the victim.

Yeah, part of me keeps wanting to check back on this thread, another part of me wants it deleted from the forum.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

So he's being charged with second degree murder? What's the average sentence for that?

"Hodgson said the charge of second-degree murder was selected as appropriate given the evidence currently available against Li."

According to Wiki:

Second degree murder - mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 10-25 years (parole eligibility determined by the judge at sentencing) (exception: if the person had committed another murder in their past, parole eligibility is 25 years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

[Bagor]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ng-victim.html

When the judge asked whether Li was using his right to remain silent, he nodded his head.

One part of the law which IMO needs to follow the UK and be scrapped. What purpose does it serve? If you didn't do the crime you've nothing to be silent about.

If the evidence is presented against you in the from of witnesses and you decide to sit there and not speak up to refute it then it should be taken into consideration.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bagor

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ng-victim.html



One part of the law which IMO needs to follow the UK and be scrapped. What purpose does it serve? If you didn't do the crime you've nothing to be silent about.

If the evidence is presented against you in the from of witnesses and you decide to sit there and not speak up to refute it then it should be taken into consideration.

you have (and should have) every right to remain silent - Especially when its the police questioning you. NEVER speak to cops. you're probably in a very stressful and emotional state weather you are innocent or guilty. All they need is for you to make a misstatement or something that could be considered contradicting yourself and they can and usually will eat you alive.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

you have (and should have) every right to remain silent - Especially when its the police questioning you. NEVER speak to cops. you're probably in a very stressful and emotional state weather you are innocent or guilty. All they need is for you to make a misstatement or something that could be considered contradicting yourself and they can and usually eat you alive.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02514885833865

[HelloHockeyFans]

This is such a troubling story... still can't get it out of my mind as it constantly creeps back in. Absolutely tragic... kid has his whole life ahead of him only to see it end at the hands of a complete nut job with clear mental sickness.

I think it's the complete randomness of this that really gets to me. Kid did nothing wrong, nothing to provoke this, nothing to deserve this. I guess we'll find out of this can be traced back to a case of failure of the system when the accused should have been kept in an institution and monitored, rather than released. Or if he wasn't ever diagnosed with some sort of illness, the signs that people saw, but never mentioned out of apathy.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

you have (and should have) every right to remain silent - Especially when its the police questioning you. NEVER speak to cops. you're probably in a very stressful and emotional state weather you are innocent or guilty. All they need is for you to make a misstatement or something that could be considered contradicting yourself and they can and usually will eat you alive.

Agreed about that, sorry, should have made it more clearer.

What I mean is for the main trial months down the line after the individual (if they're in a fit state of mind) has had legal advice/counselling etc .....

If they refuse to take the stand after all the allegations have been made to refute them the judge should be entitled to direct the jury to take it into consideration.

I agree with innocent until proven guilty etc but there also should be some onus on the charged individual to refute the charges. I still don't get what point it serves in a criminal trial.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Agreed about that, sorry, should have made it more clearer.

What I mean is for the main trial months down the line after the individual (if they're in a fit state of mind) has had legal advice/counselling etc .....

If they refuse to take the stand after all the allegations have been made to refute them the judge should be entitled to direct the jury to take it into consideration.

I agree with innocent until proven guilty etc but there also should be some onus on the charged individual to refute the charges. I still don't get what point it serves in a criminal trial.

Probably for a lot of the same reasons. If i'm on trial for murder, I'm going to be nervous as hell. Probably even more so if I could go to jail for life for something I didn't commit. It would be so extremely easy to make some contradiction or minor statement that they can prove is false due to nervousness or simple innocent mis-recollection. Any prosecutor will be able to tear you apart for something like that.

If my trial is going well, why should I be required to take the stand and screw myself over?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Even Charles Bronson would have had a pretty tough go of shooting a guy in the head on a moving bus full of panicked people.

I gotta wonder what the was going through the cop's heads as they were dealing with this lunatic.

"Dispatch, we've got a guy with a knife in one hand and a human head in the other. Backup, we need backup".

I don't mean that as a joke, really. It must have been pretty intense. Probably some itchy trigger fingers and sweaty palms and I don't know if anyone could blame them if they'd shot the guy.

According to the CTV 11pm news, the killer is 40 years old. The RCs apparently tackled him as he jumped out of a window from the bus.

Yeah, no doubt about that.

I wonder why they didn't just shoot the guy. If he was holding the victim's head....just shoot the guy.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Probably for a lot of the same reasons. If i'm on trial for murder, I'm going to be nervous as hell. Probably even more so if I could go to jail for life for something I didn't commit. It would be so extremely easy to make some contradiction or minor statement that they can prove is false due to nervousness or simple innocent mis-recollection. Any prosecutor will be able to tear you apart for something like that.

If my trial is going well, why should I be required to take the stand and screw myself over?

Depends on your faith in the justice system. If you know you're innocent and have the truth on your side you'll get up there just as (in my experience) you know 100% the git in the dock is guilty and you have the truth on your side you'll get up there nerves, shakes, stutters, stammers and all to make sure he gets the hammer.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Log

No kidding. The guy had already taken 5 stabs to the neck. Very good chance that he was dead before everyone would have a chance to subdue the attacker.

Okay, I'm not calling anyone a coward, but just because the guy was 'probably' already dead, which we don't know....isn't a good reason for people to run.

I'm sure 90% of the people in that situation would also run. That is normal human behavior. But to say 'ah hell, forget him, he's already dead' and flee, that doesn't fly.

[Azure]

If he's being charged with 2nd degree murder, then this whole ordeal wasn't planned from the start.

And if it WAS random....wow. Randomly cutting someone's head off?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Depends on your faith in the justice system. If you know you're innocent and have the truth on your side you'll get up there just as (in my experience) you know 100% the git in the dock is guilty and you have the truth on your side you'll get up there nerves, shakes, stutters, stammers and all to make sure he gets the hammer.

if i know 100% that i am completely innocent but it has made it to the point of trial... I'll be nervous as hell and have little faith in the justice system at this point. but that's just me, personally.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

if i know 100% that i am completely innocent but it has made it to the point of trial... I'll be nervous as hell and have little faith in the justice system at this point.

Good point, can't argue against it. Me, I'd be shouting my innocence from the rafters.

[fredr123]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

If he's being charged with 2nd degree murder, then this whole ordeal wasn't planned from the start.

And if it WAS random....wow. Randomly cutting someone's head off?

How long does something need to be planned though? According to witnesses, Li first sat near the front of the bus and then later took a seat next to the victim. It sounds like some planning went into it.

This is completely insane.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

So would you say that at the end of what could be described as a very borderline case (one witness only) when the judge is directing the jury:

It would be fair for him to:

1. Mention to the jury that they should note that the defendant had heard the allegations from the sole witness and had every opportunity to take the stand to refute them and had refused to do so.
2. Comment on his perception of the witness behaviour on the stand (thorough, meticulous) thus swaying their perception of him.
3. Tell the jury that along with an accurate description of the defendant that wasn't challenged by the defence he had also described the defendants accent. Given that the defendant didn't speak and the defence didn't challenge this they were to assume that this information also was accurate?

This is a UK case where a jury is allowed to draw adverse inferences from a suspect's refusal to provide an explanation for prosecution evidence.