This is not manslaughter - This is the deliberate murder of a person

[WLDB]

Actually, it's the 'public interest' against the defendant. The 'public interest' is represented by the Crown.
Good luck with that. I have personally heard a Crown make personal emotional references in a Courtroom, that neither the Duty Counsel, nor the Judge challenged.

In this case, it was manslaughter. Intent, not circumstances makes all the difference. In the latest case, with the young offender, it will be the same ending, manslaughter. Because neither had intent.

Public Interest or the Crown, it is ultimately the same thing. It is society as a whole. Far better than the family being the one to prosecute.

Emotional arguments should have no place in a courtroom, or really anywhere where good arguments are taking place.

Also, is not intent one of the circumstances?

 

[JLM]

Actually, it's the 'public interest' against the defendant. The 'public interest' is represented by the Crown.
Good luck with that. I have personally heard a Crown make personal emotional references in a Courtroom, that neither the Duty Counsel, nor the Judge challenged.

In this case, it was manslaughter. Intent, not circumstances makes all the difference. In the latest case, with the young offender, it will be the same ending, manslaughter. Because neither had intent.

Good points, Bear. The only argument I can put forth is "should a death occurring during the commission of a crime be treated as a homicide"?

 

[CDNBear]

Public Interest or the Crown, it is ultimately the same thing.

No it isn't. They are two separate things.

It is society as a whole.

No it isn't. That's mob rule.

Far better than the family being the one to prosecute.

Agreed.

Emotional arguments should have no place in a courtroom, or really anywhere where good arguments are taking place.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. How do you think the the laws that affect the public interest are dictated?

Also, is not intent one of the circumstances?

No. The circumstances are the material facts. Intent is a mind set.

Good points, Bear. The only argument I can put forth is "should a death occurring during the commission of a crime be treated as a homicide"?

It was considered Homicide. But to what degree, is the question. Any death at the hands of another, is considered Homicide.

The question is, is it murder or manslaughter. Murder requires the intent to inflict.

In neither was that the intent. The defendants intent, was to flee. The result, the death of an Officer.

The case from 2007, involving an adult, though it could be reasonably believed that he should have known that the act of fleeing while an Officer was attempting to impede his escape could have resulted in serious bodily injury and/or death. Proving it, is a complete separate and most difficult task.

 

[Goober]

In criminal cases it is the Crown against a suspect, not the family of a victim. The family can pursue a civil case if they wish to, though they likely won't gain anything from it. If we tailor sentences to what the victim's family wants on every crime we can end up with very different and unfair treatments of criminals who have committed the same crime. One person may go free while another is executed, fortunately the latter is not possible here. Crimes should remain impersonal and be considered crimes against the state, rather than be handed over to the individual and be a quest for revenge.

We may be multi-cultural but we have only one law. It should remain that way. The police officer likely believed the same thing, otherwise he wouldn't have taken a job upholding said laws.



It is considered homicide whenever a person dies in an event regardless of the circumstances. It is the circumstances which determine whether or not it is murder, and then the type of murder.

I was not trying to rag on you. I thought about the post this morning. It is next to impossible to prove pre meditated murder. All this person has to state is i did not know, i was scared - i did not think - his lawyer has one major point to make - not that he is not guilty, but that there is a reasonable doubt he planned to commit murder. The law has to change. The judge imposed a sentence un the Crim Code that follows past precedents. Every time they lower a sentence, the precedent is then used in all courts as the basis for a sentence. They keep on lowering the penalty but the loss is still a persons life. That does not change

A lifetime weapons ban in this case should also include a vehicle - as that was the weapon of choice. And he did indeed make that choice.

 

[WLDB]

I was not trying to rag on you. I thought about the post this morning. It is next to impossible to prove pre meditated murder. All this person has to state is i did not know, i was scared - i did not think - his lawyer has one major point to make - not that he is not guilty, but that there is a reasonable doubt he planned to commit murder. The law has to change. The judge imposed a sentence un the Crim Code that follows past precedents. Every time they lower a sentence, the precedent is then used in all courts as the basis for a sentence. They keep on lowering the penalty but the loss is still a persons life. That does not change

A lifetime weapons ban in this case should also include a vehicle - as that was the weapon of choice. And he did indeed make that choice.

It is possible to prove pre-meditated murder. People do get convicted of first degree murder here. Even those that lie and say they didnt know or didnt plan can and have been convicted. They have witnesses they can use who were in the vehicle.

Also, given he's 15 the "i did not know, i was scared - i did not think -" is entirely possible. Its well known that most people at that age don't think before doing stupid things as their brains aren't done being developed and won't be for at least another 5 years or so.

 

[JLM]

No doubt there's a lot of 15 year olds like that today but there's many who aren't. It's got quite a bit to do with how much responsibility they were made to take as a youngster. Many today can't handle disappointment but they are good as long as things are going THEIR way.

 

[Goober]

It is possible to prove pre-meditated murder. People do get convicted of first degree murder here. Even those that lie and say they didnt know or didnt plan can and have been convicted. They have witnesses they can use who were in the vehicle.

Also, given he's 15 the "i did not know, i was scared - i did not think -" is entirely possible. Its well known that most people at that age don't think before doing stupid things as their brains aren't done being developed and won't be for at least another 5 years or so.

Not being sarcastic but perhaps we should extend the YOA to 30 or 35. He knew what he was doing could cause injury or even death and decided to make a run for it.

 

[JLM]

Not being sarcastic but perhaps we should extend the YOA to 30 or 35. He knew what he was doing could cause injury or even death and decided to make a run for it.

That would discriminate against 40 year olds. :smile:

 

[shadowshiv]

Just to be a devil's advocate here.... in order to find someone guilty of 1st degree, you have to prove intent to kill.... all evidence shows he was trying to evade arrest, not to purposely kill any of the officers.

And the fact that the officer's family and friends have accepted the sentence and have had closure over the whole ordeal, that should be the end of it, because as I see it, what really matters is if the victims or the victim's family are satisfied and get their closure over the crime. If they feel justice was served, then let it be and move on.

In Canada, if a police officer is killed by someone else in the line of duty, it is automatically considered a Capital Offence(hence the First Degree murder charge). So whether there was intent or not makes no difference in this case, as First Degree is pretty much a given.

I wonder where they got the van?

He borrowed the van from his father, without the father's permission.

One reason to maintain a gallows (or our version of Ol' Sparky) is for little bastards like that. There is no doubt he is the culprit, so there is no danger of expunging the wrong person. All that would be left to argue is the seriousness of the crime, but I'm sure his widow and daughter could give an accurate evaluation of that.

I think the fact that he is paralyzed from the waist down is a good start to the punishment that he will be dealing with.


....

 

[CDNBear]

They have witnesses they can use who were in the vehicle.

Who can testify to what they saw, heard or know. They can not testify to what they think may have been going through the drivers head.

Also, given he's 15 the "i did not know, i was scared - i did not think -" is entirely possible.

Although true. By the age of 15, people have there sense of right and wrong firmly instilled.

He knew what he was doing could cause injury or even death and decided to make a run for it.

That is entirely dependant on the circumstances.

In Canada, if a police officer is killed by someone else in the line of duty, it is automatically considered a Capital Offence(hence the First Degree murder charge). So whether there was intent or not makes no difference in this case, as First Degree is pretty much a given.....

Although true, the Jury can reject the charge. As they did in the case in the OP.

On a side note. I was at the Courthouse on the 21st, I actually watched Plunkett's wife make her statement after the Jury rejected the charge of Murder, opting instead to convict him of manslaughter. I was also there on the 29th, which was the day after the incident with the youth on hiway 48, when Nadeem Jiwa was sentenced to 12 years, minus time served.

You could feel the contempt in the air.

 

[Goober]

Who can testify to what they saw, heard or know. They can not testify to what they think may have been going through the drivers head.

Although true. By the age of 15, people have there sense of right and wrong firmly instilled.

That is entirely dependant on the circumstances.

Although true, the Jury can reject the charge. As they did in the case in the OP.

On a side note. I was at the Courthouse on the 21st, I actually watched Plunkett's wife make her statement after the Jury rejected the charge of Murder, opting instead to convict him of manslaughter. I was also there on the 29th, which was the day after the incident with the youth on hiway 48, when Nadeem Jiwa was sentenced to 12 years, minus time served.

You could feel the contempt in the air.

And yes contempt is what the average Joe Blow feels for the justice system. That is why, wrongly I may add that many are for mimimum sentences. Wrongly I will clarify because in some cases the Cons are getting it wrong.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Under the current system of "justice", he'll be out in 7 years. Nice.:roll:

You're sort of right here. As a "youth" the max sentence is 7yrs, but that's cut into two
parts....1/2 in custody & 1/2 served in the community...and then factor out any remand
time counting double coming off the sentence for the 'in custody' time....so that kid will
most likely be out long before his 18th birthday, if I understand things correctly.

 

[JLM]

You're sort of right here. As a "youth" the max sentence is 7yrs, but that's cut into two
parts....1/2 in custody & 1/2 served in the community...and then factor out any remand
time counting double coming off the sentence for the 'in custody' time....so that kid will
most likely be out long before his 18th birthday, if I understand things correctly.

Yep, the little bastards literally get away with murder these days, back in the day we got worse for lipping off the old man! :smile:

 

[CDNBear]

Yep, the little bastards literally get away with murder these days, back in the day we got worse for lipping off the old man! :smile:

I wouldn't go as far to say that.

I'm still working with a Native youth that is trying to navigating the system and actually get justice.

I understand that this is purely anecdotal, but you must admit, I'm a pretty "Law & Order" kinda guy. The system does coddle some kids, while others get lost and or have their rights trampled.

The young man I represent is having an uphill battle. His crime, assault. If it weren't for the fact that he's Native, his bail conditions would have not been upheld. Simply because there just isn't anything available in the youth justice system, until conviction.

Thankfully, the Anish community in my area, has court recognized programs, that allowed him to meet his bail conditions.