Robert Latimer

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I'd have to wonder what you mean by earnestly religious.
In this context I doubt there's a single word that covers what I mean, and I do understand your challenging that phrase. It's the best I could come up with without getting so long-winded nobody would read the sentence. Sincerely zealous but misguided into arrogant folly; how's that? :)
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
I have to ask:

Do you know that Tracey was in incredible pain? That pain was so bad that they were planning to amputate her legs to prevent some of the agonizing pain from her constant hip displacements?

I believe Latimer acted with her best interests at heart, to avoid more pain and mutilation being heaped upon the unfortunate child.......and I think the method he used points to his basic motivation.....mercy.

Yet he killed.

Manslaughter, IMHO.........he should have served a year.....

BTW, the ONLY reason he got 10 years was it is the mandatory minimum........a great argument against that (lack of) process.


We know pain can be controlled. But in general cerebral palsy does not cause pain, although it is certainly debilitating. I think Latimer lied through his teeth about his daughter's condition. You see parents every whose children are in distress doing anything to alleviate their circumstances and enable them. They love their children. Only monsters resort to murder.

What did Latimer do, he GASSED her, the Mengele solution, the ONLY difference is in the scale, and the familiarity of the victim.. as someone who in his estimation was unfit to live.

He got off lightly for a callous, repugnant crime. He's a coward, in an utter state of denial of the gravity of his actions... as is the court system of the dangerous precedent, the slippery slope that qualifying and excusing deliberate, premeditated murder of a disabled child establishes.

There were submissions to the court by disabled groups, by individuals with cerebral palsy specifically on this issue.
 
Last edited:

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
So, are you a jurist, or a juror? First degree murder is very hard to prove, even though Robert Latimer basically convicted himself. However, state of mind has to be taken into consideration. Malice could never be considered because none existed. None of us were there to hear the evidence; I am of the position that he was put in an untenable by circumstance for which he saw no other option. Good friends of ours are from Wilkie who are familiar with the family and are of a different opinion. They, however, have no children of their own and have experienced life differently. I believe there will be no agreement between us as there will be no agreement among other Canadians. The law is not black and white.

An admission of premeditation is not hard to prove at all. Motive, in malice means nothing in assertaining guilt, if in fact premedition is admitted... it is a moot point. You don't have to prove motive. The facts of the case spoke for themselves. All of the posts in this forum have not contested this. What has been argued is whether premeditated murder is EXCUSABLE, and the law sais, rightly it NEVER is.

Generally Second Degree Murder is applied to cases where circumstances and 'heat of moment' led to actions that a reasonable person would realize would cause the death of another person. Latimer planned his actions with cool forethought, and complete cogninzance of the outcome. That is First Degree Murder.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
We know pain can be controlled. But in general cerebral palsy does not cause pain, although it is certainly debilitating. I think Latimer lied through his teeth about his daughter's condition. You see parents every whose children are in distress doing anything to alleviate their circumstances and enable them. They love their children. Only monsters resort to murder.

What did Latimer do, he GASSED her, the Mengele solution, the ONLY difference is in the scale, and the familiarity of the victim.. as someone who in his estimation was unfit to live.

He got off lightly for a callous, repugnant crime. He's a coward, in an utter state of denial of the gravity of his actions... as is the court system of the dangerous precedent, the slippery slope that qualifying and excusing deliberate, premeditated murder of a disabled child establishes.

There were submissions to the court by disabled groups, by individuals with cerebral palsy specifically on this issue.



An admission of premeditation is not hard to prove at all. Motive, in malice means nothing in assertaining guilt, if in fact premedition is admitted... it is a moot point. You don't have to prove motive. The facts of the case spoke for themselves. All of the posts in this forum have not contested this. What has been argued is whether premeditated murder is EXCUSABLE, and the law sais, rightly it NEVER is.

You have a perfect right to your opinion but remember, that is all it is, and people can be sued for libel for their "opinion".
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
So, are you a jurist, or a juror? First degree murder is very hard to prove, even though Robert Latimer basically convicted himself. However, state of mind has to be taken into consideration. Malice could never be considered because none existed. None of us were there to hear the evidence; I am of the position that he was put in an untenable by circumstance for which he saw no other option. Good friends of ours are from Wilkie who are familiar with the family and are of a different opinion. They, however, have no children of their own and have experienced life differently. I believe there will be no agreement between us as there will be no agreement among other Canadians. The law is not black and white.

An admission of premeditation is not hard to prove at all. Motive or malice is irrelevant in assertaining guilt, if in fact premedition is admitted, and the person understood the outcome... it is a moot point. You don't have to prove motive. The facts of the case spoke for themselves. All of the posts in this forum have not contested this. What has been argued is whether premeditated murder is EXCUSABLE, under certain circumstances, and the law sais, rightly it NEVER is.

Generally Second Degree Murder is applied to cases where spontaneous circumstances and 'heat of moment' led to actions that a reasonable person would realize would cause the death of another person. Latimer planned his actions with cool forethought, and complete cogninzance of the outcome, over days and weeks. That is First Degree Murder.
 
Last edited:

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
You have a perfect right to your opinion but remember, that is all it is, and people can be sued for libel for their "opinion".

Sounds a little like the thought control enforced by dictatorships like the Nazis, where you allowed to have your opinion, provided it agreed with those of the tyranny. :rolleyes:

Well, Coldstream, are you as anti war?

The circumstance of war never has legitimized first degree murder. After WW2 Nazis guilty of mass murder were convicted and hanged for it, officers who ordered the murder of Prisoners of War were shot for it. The rules of engagement in a war, against an armed belligerent, where both sides are aiming to incapacitate each other are defined in the sameway justifiable homicide is, by self defense.. but within clearly defined limits that every legitimate army teaches its soldiers.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Sounds a little like the thought control enforced by dictatorships like the Nazis, where you allowed to have your opinion, provided it agreed with those of the tyranny. :rolleyes:

REALLY?????? If you think that way you still have the right to keep your opinion to yourself and you'll never be criticised for it. When you open mouth (which is your perfect right) you have to be ready to take responsibility. (I think old Trudeau forgot about that when he contrived the Charter).
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
Every death in war is first degree murder. Actions in war are take to kill the enemy. They are premeditated and well planned. Having a document signed by a bunch of politicians most certainly does not change the facts. Religious people should be using all their resources to stop war as it is the largest source of premeditated murder. All this fuss over Latimer is really just taking away from what true religious people should be doing if they have a moral bone in their body.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
10
Aether Island
I agree, A1A! I was simply testing Coldstrean's consistency quotient. So far it's 0.5. I think (s)he believes taking another life is contextual! Apparently, (s)he's a relativist!
Ps to Coldstream
And your view on capital punishment?
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
I agree, A1A! I was simply testing Coldstrean's consistency quotient. So far it's 0.5. I think (s)he believes taking another life is contextual! Apparently, (s)he's a relativist!
Ps to Coldstream
And your view on capital punishment?

I'm (he) generally opposed to capital punishment, except in extreme cases where societal order has completely broken down, and mob rule prevails. Even then only when there are not other options. But i would have hanged the Nazi leadership, as happened, for crimes against humanity. And i fail to see how my comments are relativistic.. just the opposite, i think we should have consistent application of the law for crimes like murder, not subjecting them to some maudlin and corrupt sentiment of 'mercy killing'.. which is a minefield of relativistic and subjective standards.
 
Last edited:

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
What did Latimer do, he GASSED her, the Mengele solution, the ONLY difference is in the scale, and the familiarity of the victim.. as someone who in his estimation was unfit to live.
Specious casuistry worthy of a Jesuit. Really you lost all credibility the first time you fell victim to Godwin's Law, and here you are doing it again. If Latimer had first experimented on his daughter by doing things like surgically attaching her to a sibling, seeing if he could get an eyeball attached to the back of her head to function, injected dyes into her eyes to see if they'd permanently change colour, done a little vivisection, then gassed her, then done an autopsy to see what effects his abuse had caused, then incinerated her, then fled to another country to make a living performing illegal abortions, you might have a point. But you don't. And you're assuming you know what motivated him, which you clearly don't know, it was not that she was inconvenient and unfit to live, and condemning him for it. Such utter lack of compassion and understanding is disturbing, but in your case predictable.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Specious casuistry worthy of a Jesuit. Really you lost all credibility the first time you fell victim to Godwin's Law, and here you are doing it again. If Latimer had first experimented on his daughter by doing things like surgically attaching her to a sibling, seeing if he could get an eyeball attached to the back of her head to function, injected dyes into her eyes to see if they'd permanently change colour, done a little vivisection, then gassed her, then done an autopsy to see what effects his abuse had caused, then incinerated her, then fled to another country to make a living performing illegal abortions, you might have a point. But you don't. And you're assuming you know what motivated him, which you clearly don't know, it was not that she was inconvenient and unfit to live, and condemning him for it. Such utter lack of compassion and understanding is disturbing, but in your case predictable.

You're really hung up on this Jesuit thing, Dexter. :rolleyes:. The Society btw is in a state of disarray and has been for a long while, far from it's great founder, St. Ignatius Loyola's vision of obedience to the Holy Father and military discipline in its evangelical mission.

To the point, Mengele was at he gates of Aushwitz to screen every incoming train for candidates for his experimentation, those deemed unuseful were shunted off to gas chambers. As i stated before motive is only an issue in solving a crime, not in legitimizing it. So i don't need to know Latimer's motive, although i believe it was completely selfish. He rationally, methodically planned and carried out the murder of his helpless child. If Mengele had been put on trial he would have claimed that his experiments were intended to relieve suffering in the grander scheme of things.. just like Robert Latimer, but it wouldn't have saved him from the noose. Several Nazi doctors were hanged after the war for the same thing.

Also i have no idea what your 'Godwin' thing is all about.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
This discussion is getting far more complicated than what is called for. Let's just stick to common sense. When we decide to prolong or curtail life it has to be decided on the value of that life, and the prognosis for the future. In the majority of cases it should be determined by the subject, but in the rare cases when the subject is not able to make that determination and the failure to do so results in suffering then you have to put it in the same context you would if it was a loved and valued pet. One problem is there seems to be different standards according to the species.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
10
Aether Island
I'm (he) generally opposed to capital punishment, except in extreme cases where societal order has completely broken down, and mob rule prevails. Even then only when there are not other options. But i would have hanged the Nazi leadership, as happened, for crimes against humanity. .

Hmmm... Your consistency quotient has sunk to 0.33! By the way, the formula follows!
CQ = [Mercy killing (0 or 1) + Capital Punishment (0 or 1) + War (0 or 1)]/3
PS to JLM
I think he is slipping from species to specious!
PPS to Coldstream
As a moral relativist, I salute a more practised brother!
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
We know pain can be controlled. But in general cerebral palsy does not cause pain, although it is certainly debilitating.

Funny, I was JUST listening to a presentation on living with chronic pain in which someone with cerebral palsy of a functioning level described having to go push through painful physio therapy to battle the crippling pain of her muscles shortening. Her description was one of a CP being a VERY painful condition. Frankly, I'll take the word of a CP patient over yours.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Funny, I was JUST listening to a presentation on living with chronic pain in which someone with cerebral palsy of a functioning level described having to go push through painful physio therapy to battle the crippling pain of her muscles shortening. Her description was one of a CP being a VERY painful condition. Frankly, I'll take the word of a CP patient over yours.

Yeah, Karrie- Some people who are f*****d up think "one size fits all". :smile: