Justice

[Puddlejumper40]

This is getting way off topic but I will address this last one.

I did not say that they intended to kill him. When one engages in an activity that has the potential to cause death and the participants know this and death occurs, then they are guilty of causing the death. That I think is fair.

The Tazer is a handy tool to have and when used properly, can diffuse potentially ugly situations. This does not meet that criteria and they tried to cover it up.

What part of that is difficult for you?

These clowns acted recklessly and without concern for the well being of the victim in any way, shape or form.

I promise you that their reaction had nothing more to do with actual police work than had they simply shot him. Which, given the end result, they might have had they been outside for example.

How anyone can watch that video and feel anything other than contempt is beyond me.

I think your choice of the word "murder" is what some people are objecting to, not the fact that what these officers did was wrong. The did not go there intending to kill him so it is wrong to use the word murder.

[mexi cali]

While I get the point you're trying to make, in my opinion, what they did was tantamount to murder.

Worst excuses for police I have ever come across. Except for maybe that tool that shot the guy in the back several times as he was running away. That guy to, IMO, was and is a murderer.

I would debate this with you and anyone else all day long as to why these four should be treated in this way.

[Donald G]

From a moral point of view there are some who would call what took place negligence to the point of thinking of it as murder.

But in law a person who does not set out to cause the death of another person can not be convicted of murder.

That is why criminal lawyers do everything under to sun to try to negate any evidence that suggests that there was an intent to kill the now dead person.

IMO the whole mess was as a result of the RCMP requirement to provide equal employment for minority groups and their refusal to deal with the resulting discipline problems that arose as a result of accepting marginal members. Robinson was in charge.

[mexi cali]

Mr. Donald. I agree with you.

The law says what these pricccks did was not murder.

In my mind it was.

Monty Robinson is evil and worse, a coward.

[steven lloyd]

... people who have committed far more heinous crimes, including violent crimes, spend less time in jail.

Absolutely true. A guy could beat the ever loving crap out of his girlfriend and maybe get 30 to 60 days (and that’s only if he is a repeat offender). 90 days is the mandatory minimum for certain sex offences now, and typically that is all a first time offender will get. See what happens if you get caught with ten marijuana plants in your greenhouse. You go Stephen Harper!

On the other hand it does make sense to me that police be held to a higher standard. I find it interesting Crown was asking for a longer sentence for that reason and the Judge felt jail would be “difficult” for him because he was a cop. Hmmm. Still, 30 months is a significant sentence, but he would be eligible for early release after 20 and could apply for parole after 10. If he was successful with the parole application he would be supervised by a parole officer until his original warrant expiry, whereas if he just behaved for 20 months and got early release he would be done. It will be interesting to see what Monte gets.

[steven lloyd]

I presume he is not serving time until the appeal is heard.

I am under the understanding he has already been granted bail pending his appeal.

[Ken7]

Mistakes happen and since you can't provide proof the lawyer lied, I suppose you've made a mistake.

That's the cool thing, Lawyers are rarely challenged on what they say. As they are not under oath they say what their client has told them.

There's a old joke, "Don't you lie on the stand, let me do it!" I only wish one day a Judge would put his fellow learned friend to task when they put it out about how hard my client has tried to change his ways.

Adjourn court and say you have one hour to prove how hard he has tried to change by showing proof of his rehabilitation even if it is a failure. Warning if you can't I'll sentence both of you, as you too are trying to make a mockery of our Judicial System!

Guess we'll never see it but you would sure see that lawyer squirm.

[Donald G]

To Ken7 ...

The fact that the lawyers consistently lie on behalf of their clients is bad enough. The fact that judges consistently believe such fabrications makes a complete mockery of the system.

The fact that such consistent fabrication does not, in the eyes of the judge, bring the system of justice into disrepute helps make the system into the sham that it is today.

[techrtr]

"This is getting way off topic but I will address this last one.

I did not say that they intended to kill him. When one engages in an activity that has the potential to cause death and the participants know this and death occurs, then they are guilty of causing the death. That I think is fair.

The Tazer is a handy tool to have and when used properly, can diffuse potentially ugly situations. This does not meet that criteria and they tried to cover it up.

What part of that is difficult for you?

These clowns acted recklessly and without concern for the well being of the victim in any way, shape or form.

I promise you that their reaction had nothing more to do with actual police work than had they simply shot him. Which, given the end result, they might have had they been outside for example.

How anyone can watch that video and feel anything other than contempt is beyond me.[/quote]"

You're the one who keeps on using the word murder. In order to commit murder, there has to be intent to kill someone. Obviously, those police officers did not intend to kill RD, so stop calling them murderers.

[techrtr]

While I get the point you're trying to make, in my opinion, what they did was tantamount to murder.

Worst excuses for police I have ever come across. Except for maybe that tool that shot the guy in the back several times as he was running away. That guy to, IMO, was and is a murderer.

I would debate this with you and anyone else all day long as to why these four should be treated in this way.

Well, the courts and independent investigators didn't feel that way and they had access to information that you didn't soooooo, let it go.

[mexi cali]

No, they had access to a video that we all had access to. That was where this all started.

One more time; I get that the law doesn't see this as murder.

I do. My opinion. Mine.

So, let it go.

[Puddlejumper40]

The law might not see this as murder but the coroner still deemed his death a homicide.

[Hassel99]

No, they had access to a video that we all had access to. That was where this all started.

One more time; I get that the law doesn't see this as murder.

I do. My opinion. Mine.

So, let it go.

Any other words you feel the need to redefine for dramatic reasons ?

[the truth]

I still think that vancouver airport and how they treated him before the rcmp showed up is just as if not more responsible for what happened that day

[Donald G]

To Puddlejumper40 ...

Homicide means death involving another person and although it can depict murder it also includes acts of manslaughter, accidental killing and justifiable homicide.

Homicide is likely one of the most misused words in the English language because of TV programs.