2013 Olympic Plaza Random Murder

[MBates]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It sounds like you're just defending the lawyers, judges and jury here from the typical criticism that judges should be held accountable for their lenient sentences etc. I don't think that's what most people are upset about. And by exact definition in your own paragraph, aboriginal sentencing guidelines is exactly a free pass. Is it better to offer it up as a federally mandated PARLIAMENTARY free pass? Rather than a judge or jury being too lenient? Either way, most opinions, educated or not will suggest knocking two years off an already ill conceived sentence is offensive.

Psychologically how is an abused aboriginal criminal different from a white guy with a 'bad childhood'? Are we adjusting sentencing because of the mountains of evidence showing abuse creates criminal patterns of behavior and thought? Or is it apart from that and because in this case "we" are the abusers?

In north America this guy gets anywhere from death to life without parole to a few years depending on jurisdiction. I'm not sure ours is this most sound judgment out there.

Not intending to be dismissive, you can read it in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Ipeelee:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../8000/index.do

It is a bit of a long read, but I promise if you take the time you will be much better informed. You can still disagree with the concept if you wish, but the statistics overwhelmingly support the conclusion that we systemically over charge and over punish aboriginal offenders as compared to non-aboriginals.

So in reality, the 'free pass' that actually exists in our system is that many of the 'white guy' you speak of will just not get arrested in the first place or will have deals done that lead to no jail when the same circumstances put the aboriginal offender behind bars.

What is important to note is that while Gladue factors are required to be considered, they are not required to reduce a sentence. It is still for the judge to determine whether the factors present are relevant and can properly reduce the sentence. Without knowing how horrific the factors may have been in this particular case, it is hard to really say that the reduction applied by the judge was not warranted.

Regardless, other than you just saying so, I do not see how you have in any way backed up the assertion that specific consideration of an aboriginal person's circumstances is a 'free pass'.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by phil98z24

You don't condone or support violence towards any civil member of our society? It's likely not lost on you the heinous crimes and incredible violence the 'motorcycle club' who inspires your very username has inflicted on numerous civil members of society, including a young boy in Quebec who had no part of that BS. It's awfully cute of you to speak out about the injustice of it all, but when you choose a username like yours it makes me wonder if you actually believe anything you're saying. 🙄

I literally, as in true meaning of the word, don't have any idea what club you're referring to. The 81MC is inspired by my first car, a 1981 Monte Carlo. It is my go-to user name for anything I do online, and has nothing at all to do with a gang, club, outlaws, criminals or motorcycles.
Now that you mention it, maybe I need to resign up for whatever I'm using this name on. Seriously had I idea it had some sort of connotation.

[81MC]

...so apparently my username is a pretty heavily used term for the HA. Honestly never knew that, and for the record I don't have a motorcycle, nor do I endorse the activities of the Hells Angels.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I think you are confusing people saying he's a murderer because he took another human life and them saying he's a murderer using legal jargon. I don't think anyone here really cares what our legal system calls it, it doesn't make it any less murder. You can talk all day about how we are wrong because the legal definition is the only one that matters but it doesn't make our moral judgements about this situation any less genuine. This guy murdered someone. The legal system can call it an accelerated act of life denial or any other legal term or euphemism that they want, he still murdered someone.

Think about it. How ridiculous would it sound if we described all acts by their legal term instead of the actual real world action? Oh no, that guy didn't kill that family when he was driving drunk, he involuntary manslaughtered them. I didn't run over that kid in the crosswalk while I was on my cell phone! I driving without due care and attentioned her!

Well, with all due respect, if you want to just invent a new meaning for words in order to support your position, then I waive the white flag because I know enough to know I cannot win in that environment.

Simply taking a human life does not equal murder in law or in English.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/murder

You switched from 'murder' to 'kill' as though they are the same. They are clearly not. You do not need a law degree to know that.

Having heard ALL the evidence (gee, I wonder if the really sensational parts made it into the media report but not a bunch of the rest of it...could that happen?) a jury of regular people found that the killing - while entirely illegal and worthy of sanction - was not murder.

That in no way minimizes the horrific nature of the act or the consequences, but in criminal law - which is just a formalization of moral standards of a society - intention matters.

If you are going to say there is no difference between the moral blameworthiness of a person killing a kid in a crosswalk as an unintended result of looking at a cellphone and killing a kid in a crosswalk after having planned it and sat waiting for just the right moment to hit the gas then I truly think we are speaking different languages.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by MBates

Not intending to be dismissive, you can read it in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Ipeelee:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../8000/index.do

It is a bit of a long read, but I promise if you take the time you will be much better informed. You can still disagree with the concept if you wish, but the statistics overwhelmingly support the conclusion that we systemically over charge and over punish aboriginal offenders as compared to non-aboriginals.

So in reality, the 'free pass' that actually exists in our system is that many of the 'white guy' you speak of will just not get arrested in the first place or will have deals done that lead to no jail when the same circumstances put the aboriginal offender behind bars.

What is important to note is that while Gladue factors are required to be considered, they are not required to reduce a sentence. It is still for the judge to determine whether the factors present are relevant and can properly reduce the sentence. Without knowing how horrific the factors may have been in this particular case, it is hard to really say that the reduction applied by the judge was not warranted.

Regardless, other than you just saying so, I do not see how you have in any way backed up the assertion that specific consideration of an aboriginal person's circumstances is a 'free pass'.

If the Gladue factors warrant a reduced sentence, what takes its place for the purposes of rehabilitation? Seems like as soon as this guy is released he's even more likely to re-offend (for the reasons that got him out sooner in the first place)...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by MBates

Well, with all due respect, if you want to just invent a new meaning for words in order to support your position, then I waive the white flag because I know enough to know I cannot win in that environment.

Simply taking a human life does not equal murder in law or in English.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/murder

You switched from 'murder' to 'kill' as though they are the same. They are clearly not. You do not need a law degree to know that.

Having heard ALL the evidence (gee, I wonder if the really sensational parts made it into the media report but not a bunch of the rest of it...could that happen?) a jury of regular people found that the killing - while entirely illegal and worthy of sanction - was not murder.

That in no way minimizes the horrific nature of the act or the consequences, but in criminal law - which is just a formalization of moral standards of a society - intention matters.

If you are going to say there is no difference between the moral blameworthiness of a person killing a kid in a crosswalk as an unintended result of looking at a cellphone and killing a kid in a crosswalk after having planned it and sat waiting for just the right moment to hit the gas then I truly think we are speaking different languages.

I'm not inventing anything and I'm not saying killing with and without intent are the same so those statements are meaningless.

But I think murder is used commonly enough, even if incorrectly by definition, that my original point stands. People aren't gonna care that a jury defined it as manslaughter because to them killing a random guy in cold blood is murder, even if it lacks the necessary intent to be legally considered murder.

This guy took an innocent persons life for no reason and is getting what many consider a light sentence. I don't think there's much you can say to change everyone's mind on that, even if your explanation does provide clarity as to why the sentence was what it was.

[Resolute 14]

Like I said, it speaks to incompetence on the part of the Crown that they could not prove murder.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like I said, it speaks to incompetence on the part of the Crown that they could not prove murder.

I'm assuming that in order to come to this conclusion you have a law degree and have access to all the facts and testimony involved in this case and not just a few inches of text printed on the news?

[Resolute 14]

Yes, yes, you're special and all, but when you slice someone's throat, stab them five more times and then stomp on their body as they are bleeding out, proving intent to cause death should be a slam dunk.

Then again, we seem to live in a country where being "too drunk" is an excuse for a criminal, but not for a victim. So, ymmv.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Then again, we seem to live in a country where being "too drunk" is an excuse for a criminal, but not for a victim. So, ymmv.

Jesus Christ. What year does that judge think it is? How does he still have a job?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm struggling with her nearly .25 alcohol content, I can't see any possible way that someone that pissed her own pants and was passed out is going to consent to anything let alone survive.

Basically you could apply a flame to a vial of her blood and it would probably burst into Flames.

Ok, I'm not serious on that last party but you understand where I'm going.

The judge was way off stupid on that one, basically he's saying that he needs die hard proof of non consent, and completely threw common sense out the window, and a complete creep got off with nothing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Jesus Christ. What year does that judge think it is? How does he still have a job?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...l-assault.html

He is being investigated.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by MBates

Not intending to be dismissive, you can read it in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Ipeelee:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../8000/index.do

It is a bit of a long read, but I promise if you take the time you will be much better informed. You can still disagree with the concept if you wish, but the statistics overwhelmingly support the conclusion that we systemically over charge and over punish aboriginal offenders as compared to non-aboriginals.

Of course I disagree with the concept because the concept as intended does not work. There are even more aboriginal people behind bars now than there was twenty years ago. There are other ways to address prejudice in the legal system as well as cycles of crime in aboriginal communities that don't involve cutting brutal murderers a break,

So in reality, the 'free pass' that actually exists in our system is that many of the 'white guy' you speak of will just not get arrested in the first place or will have deals done that lead to no jail when the same circumstances put the aboriginal offender behind bars.

Does cutting two years of an aboriginal murderer's sentence ensure more white guys get arrested?

What is important to note is that while Gladue factors are required to be considered, they are not required to reduce a sentence. It is still for the judge to determine whether the factors present are relevant and can properly reduce the sentence. Without knowing how horrific the factors may have been in this particular case, it is hard to really say that the reduction applied by the judge was not warranted.

Judges are actually not even supposed to reduce sentence time but rather find alternatives to sentencing that focus on restorative justice. That was the intent of Gladue. I guess there is more often than not, no restorative alternatives available so we end up with this nonsense about reducing sentences because there is no other constructive option.

Regardless, other than you just saying so, I do not see how you have in any way backed up the assertion that specific consideration of an aboriginal person's circumstances is a 'free pass'.

It's a freebie simply because it doesn't work and sentence reduction was not the intent of the mandate in the first place. Ironically it's even a greater free pass for white people. We get to feel like we're actually doing something to help people we've really screwed over.