The Mayerthorpe Tragedy- was it handled as well as it could have been?
- Thread starter Outta here
- Start date
I watched that video and I watched the original news reports. I read everything I could find on this tragedy. From the start Roscoe didn't want just any gun. He wanted a particular rifle that would give him an enormous firepower advantage over the four mounties. Roscoe made no secret that he was going to raise hell with that rifle.
Hennessey and his brother in law gave him the rifle, ammo, and provided transportation to the back of the crime scene. As far as I'm concerned, that makes them guilty. They could have earned some sympathy had they made a call and warned the RCMP that their constables were in danger. They did nothing of the sort. Earlier, Roscoe made several trips to Hennessy's home trying to stash a truck that was going to be repossessed. He then wanted the automatic rifle. That Roscoe was desparate was, obvious. Giving Roscoe the rifle and providing transportation made Hennessey and his brother in law as guilty as Roscoe.
Just another couple items. Roscoe sold pot to Hennessy. Roscoe also dealt in auto parts. Did Hennessey or his brother in law buy stolen auto parts from Roscoe?
I probably would have found those two liars guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
Hennessey and his brother in law gave him the rifle, ammo, and provided transportation to the back of the crime scene. As far as I'm concerned, that makes them guilty. They could have earned some sympathy had they made a call and warned the RCMP that their constables were in danger. They did nothing of the sort. Earlier, Roscoe made several trips to Hennessy's home trying to stash a truck that was going to be repossessed. He then wanted the automatic rifle. That Roscoe was desparate was, obvious. Giving Roscoe the rifle and providing transportation made Hennessey and his brother in law as guilty as Roscoe.
Just another couple items. Roscoe sold pot to Hennessy. Roscoe also dealt in auto parts. Did Hennessey or his brother in law buy stolen auto parts from Roscoe?
I probably would have found those two liars guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
I think they got what they deserved. No, scratch that. They should count their lucky stars that they got the sentences they did. Four RCMP officers were killed by a piece of crap, and the two that gave him the weapon that killed the officers are just as guilty in my eyes. Disgusting.:angryfire:
These guys got 12 and 15 years and I'm certainly not one to judge their degree of guilt........what was in their minds is more important than their actions. Sentences of that length should be reserved for REAL criminals. Were these guys real dangerous criminals and a threat to the public, or were they merely stupid idiots?
Yes, indirectly. What about the guy who supplied the gun in the first place? I think the sentences were a bit severe.
I believe the weapon actually used in the shooting (a Heckler & Koch Model 91) was originally smuggled in from the USA.....as it is completely prohibited in Canada (stupid as that is).
The guy that originally supplied the weapon would have no direct knowledge of Rozko's (how the Hell do you spell it?) intent, and is guilty of nothing IMHO, unlike the guys who supplied him with a weapon and drove him to the farm, knowing he had it for the purpose of confronting the police.
I have to say... we see lesser sentences for deaths inflicted by impaired drivers - this is a degree of stupidity that does carry some intent and foreknowledge of consequences - and this the difference to me between what Hennessy and Cheeseman did.
Some kinds of stupid can only truly be evident in tragic hindsight. Some of the facts of this case are a being glossed over in what I see as a bit of an over zealous desire/need to have a scapegoat for this tragedy - a live scapegoat that can satiate a need for vengeance rather than have us settle on a less satisfying result with no one left alive to punish.
Some kinds of stupid can only truly be evident in tragic hindsight. Some of the facts of this case are a being glossed over in what I see as a bit of an over zealous desire/need to have a scapegoat for this tragedy - a live scapegoat that can satiate a need for vengeance rather than have us settle on a less satisfying result with no one left alive to punish.
Every life is equally valuable. Mrs. Dziekanski grieves the loss of her son. Will equal justice be done? Or, ...
You cannot begin to equate the loss of 4 police officers with what happened to Robert Dziekanski. By saying that I do not mean his life was worth less than theirs. The death of the police officers was pre-meditated and there was not moments in which his death could have been prevented as in the case with the four officers. There was hours and hours - a whole night passed without a single phone call. To suggest that all these men are guilty of is stupidity is an insult to the four who died, at the very least. I have a slide show I would like to add in here but I don't know how to do it. I really wish I could show it to all of you. Like it or not, the penalty for killing a police officer is much higher then killing a civilian.
I have not read it yet but I see there is a thread on here regarding the RCMP and tasers again today. If nothing else, Robert Dziekanski's death may eliminate or lower the use of the taser so his death may not be completely in vain. The four officers lives were taken completely in vain. Juan said that he watched the actual story on TV rather than what has been shown here. I would have to watch it again to be sure but it appeared to me that parts of it were shown more than once meaning it was rigged to gain the public's sympathy. I could be wrong.
As near as I can tell, the H & K 91 Hennessey supplied to Roscoe, is a machine gun, not a deer rifle. In giving Roscoe this weapon, they pretty well sentenced the the young RCMP constables to death.
Roscoe must have had something almost as bad because each officer was struck four or five times according to reports.
From a CTV report.
Quote:
"An agreed statement of facts given to the court revealed that Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman provided a rifle and ammunition to James Roszko and that the two men drove Roszko back to his farm area before the deadly showdown with four RCMP officers. The rifle provided to Roszko from both men was not used to kill the four officers."
Quote:
"An agreed statement of facts given to the court revealed that Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman provided a rifle and ammunition to James Roszko and that the two men drove Roszko back to his farm area before the deadly showdown with four RCMP officers. The rifle provided to Roszko from both men was not used to kill the four officers."
This is where I see a problem occurring with this case. The facts are being grossly misconstrued, and the mitigating circumstances are being poo-poo'd as if they don't matter.
Well, the facts need to be weighed with full awareness of what is fact and what is just vindictive rumour... and mitigating circumstances DO need to be weighed as well. Without those factors, this whole scenario might never have gone the way it did... as Hennessy's wife said in the interview - this could have quite easily ended with the death of an entire family at the hands of Roszko AS WELL as all those officers.
I haven't seen the program but did they make any attempt to call the Police and report a person "armed and out-of-control". If they were terrified then as soon as they were out of immediate danger to themselves or their families they could have sought help (from the guys with more guns, the Police) Barring that they should at least made some perpetrations to kill him the very next time they saw him, if they hadn't then they weren't all that terrified.
So What!!! Hennessey still gave it to him and he still had it available to him to use as a weapon of choice. The fact that he did not use it means nothing. If it was all he had, he would have used it.
What I find strange in all of this, is that it is reported that Roscoe never used the machine gun he got from Hennesey, but that each officer was hit four or five times so Roscoe must have had something else just about as deadly.
The story told by Hennessey was heart rending to be sure, but did it ever come up during the investigation? Both Hennessey and his brother in law had some kind of relationship with Roscoe. What's that old saying? "If you lay down with dogs, you risk getting fleas". There is no doubt those two aided and abbetted a killer. In my mind, the sentences were too light.
They had all night - so probably about 8 - 10 hours to call the police and they made zero attempt. No one seems to remember that these men voluntarily pled guilty. This was probably on the advice of a lawyer who would have advised them that they would get "less time" if they turned themselves in. Do also remember that they told undercover police what they had done. It doesn't matter in this case if they would do it again. It matters that indirectly, they are responsible for the lives of four men. They made the choice - not to call the police. They knew beyond a doubt that no matter what it was - he was up to no good. You don't sneak onto your own property in the dark of night. The un-armed officer was not there in an offical capacity. He just stopped by to see a fellow officer. Why did Roszko shoot him?