Murderer will serve 4 1/2 years in prison - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Stillman16 · 02-21-2011, 01:11 PM

I'm no lawyer, but I think this may also have to do with the prosecuter's confidence in getting a conviction (hence the propensity to settle the cases before trial).

If he goes for the max, and can't get the jury to agree, he may get off with nothing.....or maybe I am basing it on too many TV court dramas!!!!

puckluck · 02-21-2011, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

What is the definition of manslaughter? What is the definition of murder?

The guy goes back with a knife and is charged with manslaughter. How does that make sense?

It doesn't, unless you've been to law school for 8 years. One day I hope I could be as smart as them.

GGG · 02-21-2011, 01:14 PM

I wonder if they had trouble with witnesses be willing to testify and credibilty of those who heard him say 'No on disrepects me'.

In pleading guilty to the Manslaughter he had to recap what happened. The police and crown may not have had access to that evidence and without that key piece of evidence it looks like a barfight gone bad which is manslaughter.

Even with that key peice of evidence it is a bar fight gone bad. It was two idiots who were to stupid to back down and got in a fight.

It certainly isn't first degree murder as it wasn't planned. Even with the utterance I don't think you can prove his intent was to kill so second would be appropriate if you can prove it. Not knowing the circumstances or the evidence I think the prosecuters deserve the benifit of the doubt.

valo403 · 02-21-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a problem with the prosecutor definition at this time. The definition of manslaughter is.

"Manslaughter constitutes an unlawful killing of another person without malice, either express or implied. The unlawful killing may be either voluntary by virtue of acting upon a sudden impulse, or involuntary."

Based on what we know about the crime, it really doesn't fall into this category.

Plain and simple the prosecutor either blew this, or was lazy about it.

Key words. We know very little.

The decision on which charge to pursue isn't solely based upon what the crime most closely resembles, it also involves what charge you can get a conviction on. Would you prefer that this thread was titled 'Accused killer found not guilty of first degree murder'?

puckluck · 02-21-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillman16

I'm no lawyer, but I think this may also have to do with the prosecuter's confidence in getting a conviction (hence the propensity to settle the cases before trial).

If he goes for the max, and can't get the jury to agree, he may get off with nothing.....or maybe I am basing it on too many TV court dramas!!!!

That also plays a role, but remember what area this happened in. If this was some rich SW area where people actually mattered the confidence in the prosecutor would shoot up.

Mean Mr. Mustard · 02-21-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

That's a whole lot of reaching. So are you saying the Calgary Sun is lying about the specifics of the case?

And what is your opinion on this matter? or do you have to be a lawyer to form an opinion?

No but I am not going to call a lawyer ignorant of the criminal justice system because I read an article in the Calgary Sun.

And the Calgary Sun doesn't have to lie about the specifics of a court case but it is in the way that they report the story, the media is well known for being able to put a spin onto a story and the Calgary Sun is especially guilty for this. All the media needs to do is omit the defenses arguments and only report the sensationalistic quotes.

valo403 · 02-21-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

It doesn't, unless you've been to law school for 8 years. One day I hope I could be as smart as them.

If you've been to law school for 8 years you're doing it wrong.

valo403 · 02-21-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

That also plays a role, but remember what area this happened in. If this was some rich SW area where people actually mattered the confidence in the prosecutor would shoot up.

Good lord, you really are a piece of work.

puckluck · 02-21-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

No but I am not going to call a lawyer ignorant of the criminal justice system because I read an article in the Calgary Sun.

And the Calgary Sun doesn't have to lie about the specifics of a court case but it is in the way that they report the story, the media is well known for being able to put a spin onto a story and the Calgary Sun is especially guilty for this. All the media needs to do is omit the defenses arguments and only report the sensationalistic quotes.

Can you even read? did I call him ignorant of the laws? no I did not. I'm sure he knows a ton about the legal system.

And again what is your opinion of this decision?

valo403 · 02-21-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

No but I am not going to call a lawyer ignorant of the criminal justice system because I read an article in the Calgary Sun.

And the Calgary Sun doesn't have to lie about the specifics of a court case but it is in the way that they report the story, the media is well known for being able to put a spin onto a story and the Calgary Sun is especially guilty for this. All the media needs to do is omit the defenses arguments and only report the sensationalistic quotes.

The Calgary Sun can also report things as fact that are either inadmissible in court or subject to a number of limitations. Somebody reading the Sun may actually have more info as to what is to alleged to have happened, but it could very well be coming from sources that were never present at trial.

Mean Mr. Mustard · 02-21-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

That also plays a role, but remember what area this happened in. If this was some rich SW area where people actually mattered the confidence in the prosecutor would shoot up.

What? This might be the dumbest comment in this entire thread and it is one that has you calling a lawyer ignorant of the criminal justice system. So he was sentenced to a lesser term because he was poor? If someone the guilty party was rich you would be saying that it was because they were rich that they weren't found guilty of first degree murder.

puckluck · 02-21-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Not necessarily lying but it doesn't preclude them from omitting relevant information.

You don't have to be a lawyer to form an opinion but you should probably be one if you want to have an informed opinion. Or at the very least do more than base your opinion on an article in the Sun.

And your point? That we shoudn't talk about the case or form an opinion unless we were in the courtroom?

Did you read the article? probably not as your schtick takes a lot of work and reading would take time.

Stillman16 · 02-21-2011, 01:22 PM

I know my knowledge in this subject is VERY limited, and mostly based on TV (not reliable) but from watching the shows (hopefully based in reality), I've seen how they are quite careful to make sure the charges will hold up.

That new one "the defenders" had one just like this, where the prosectutor was too stubborn to allow the lesser charge, and the defense was able to convice the jury First Degree Murder wasn't applicable, and no lesser charge was offered, so he was found "not guilty of First Degree murder"......

Mean Mr. Mustard · 02-21-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

Can you even read? did I call him ignorant of the laws? no I did not. I'm sure he knows a ton about the legal system.

And again what is your opinion of this decision?

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

You seem like the only ignorant one in every thread involving anything about law.

What is my opinion, I don't know and I wouldn't form an opinion based upon an article from the Calgary Sun that was maybe 200 words considering the court case likely took a number of weeks and the transcripts of the court case would likely fill a number of binders. I am not going to form an opinion on something that I know I know next to nothing about, to do so would be ignorant.

GreenTeaFrapp · 02-21-2011, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

And your point? That we shoudn't talk about the case or form an opinion unless we were in the courtroom?

My point is that we shouldn't form an opinion on nothing more than an article in the Sun and that a prosecutor involved in the case probably has a better grasp on the law than you do.

Quote:

Did you read the article? probably not as your schtick takes a lot of work and reading would take time.

Reading Sun articles takes very little time. Especially for someone who reads as fast as me.

puckluck · 02-21-2011, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

What is my opinion, I don't know and I wouldn't form an opinion based upon an article from the Calgary Sun that was maybe 200 words considering the court case likely took a number of weeks and the transcripts of the court case would likely fill a number of binders. I am not going to form an opinion on something that I know I know next to nothing about, to do so would be ignorant.

Then why comment on a thread where people are fine with forming opinions on Calgary Sun articles?

Not everyone here has access to the transcripts of the case.

puckluck · 02-21-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

My point is that we shouldn't form an opinion on nothing more than an article in the Sun and that a prosecutor involved in the case probably has a better grasp on the law than you do.

Reading Sun articles takes very little time. Especially for someone who reads as fast as me.

I'm sure the prosecutor has a better grasp on the law than I do, but it doesn't mean they are doing their jobs right.

A ton of people who know their jobs better than anyone do crappy jobs from time to time.

GreenTeaFrapp · 02-21-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillman16

I know my knowledge in this subject is VERY limited, and mostly based on TV (not reliable) but from watching the shows (hopefully based in reality), I've seen how they are quite careful to make sure the charges will hold up.

That new one "the defenders" had one just like this, where the prosectutor was too stubborn to allow the lesser charge, and the defense was able to convice the jury First Degree Murder wasn't applicable, and no lesser charge was offered, so he was found "not guilty of First Degree murder"......

I'd take my legal advice from "The Defenders" before taking it from puckluck.

Mean Mr. Mustard · 02-21-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

Then why comment on a thread where people are fine with forming opinions on Calgary Sun articles?

Not everyone here has access to the transcripts of the case.

And actually all court cases are open to the public and that includes everyone having access to the records. There are some exceptions such as high profile cases but if you go through www.albertacourts.ab.ca you should be able to order transcripts I believe.

And I comment on this thread because I guess I can? I should only comment on threads where I can give you an internet handjob as to how great you and your opinions are?

GreenTeaFrapp · 02-21-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck

I'm sure the prosecutor has a better grasp on the law than I do, but it doesn't mean they are doing their jobs right.

A ton of people who know their jobs better than anyone do crappy jobs from time to time.

And do you really feel that you know this case well enough to be able to pass judgment on them?