Time Served After 3 Separate Assaults

[ferri]

*Stay on topic and stop picking at each other please. Thanks! :)

[Fancy]

No, what I did was voice my opinion, based on quotes directly from the judge during sentencing. The sentencing stinks, and the reasons the judge based his sentencing on stink too.

The judge based his decision on what was presented by crown and defence:

The sentence was “on the edge of what’s acceptable to the court,” said Judge Mayland McKimm, noting he would have preferred a sentence of 12 to 18 months given the severity of the attacks levied by Antoine.

Tilting the scales toward acceptability, explained McKimm, was the Crown and defence finding a sentence that reflects a “meaningful application of the Gladue principle.”

[fvkasm2x]

No, what I did was voice my opinion, based on quotes directly from the judge during sentencing. The sentencing stinks, and the reasons the judge based his sentencing on stink too. That is not an assumption either. If all you have to offer is insults and attempts at grammatical corrections, maybe correct yours first - then go find another sucker to amuse yourself with.

But it is. You have no idea what facts or evidence were presented by the defense. You have no idea what factors the judge is referencing and you clearly have no understanding of the Gladue Report

[voice of reason]

ill bump this thread in about a year when this kid kills someone for real

[WalterWhite]

No, what I did was voice my opinion, based on quotes directly from the judge during sentencing. The sentencing stinks, and the reasons the judge based his sentencing on stink too. That is not an assumption either. If all you have to offer is insults and attempts at grammatical corrections, maybe correct yours first - then go find another sucker to amuse yourself with.

But it is. You have no idea what facts or evidence were presented by the defense. You have no idea what factors the judge is referencing and you clearly have no understanding of the Gladue Report

There you go making assumptions again. I have a very clear understanding of the Gladue Report and the fact it is the basis for the sentencing many cases involving First Nations people. I do not however agree with it being rolled out every time a FN person is presented before the courts. The judge said it did not result in a "discount on his sentence". (it clearly did) If it didn't - then why involve it or bring it up? The sentence is a joke (that's my opinion - not an assumption btw). The link to the story I based my OP and comments on did not mention the Gladue Report (probably because according to the judge it had no bearing on sentencing) - it did mention the words the judge used in his sentencing, which I and others took offense to. The link later provided by Fancy did not contain the same quote I based my OP on. It did however mention the Gladue Report being used by both the crown and the defense in finding a sentence as the judge felt a sentence of 12 - 18 months was in order - I again disagree with the Gladue Report being put forward and used in this instance, but - that's just my opinion.

[WalterWhite]

No, what I did was voice my opinion, based on quotes directly from the judge during sentencing. The sentencing stinks, and the reasons the judge based his sentencing on stink too.

The judge based his decision on what was presented by crown and defence:

The sentence was “on the edge of what’s acceptable to the court,” said Judge Mayland McKimm, noting he would have preferred a sentence of 12 to 18 months given the severity of the attacks levied by Antoine.

Tilting the scales toward acceptability, explained McKimm, was the Crown and defence finding a sentence that reflects a “meaningful application of the Gladue principle.”

That article you provided the link for is not the article I based the OP on, and does not contain the quotes by the judge referenced in the OP. If the Gladue Report did not result in a "discount on his sentence" - why was the Gladue principle put forward in this case? It either has a direct impact on the case and sentencing, or it does not and should not be brought up. my issue remains - the sentence is a joke considering the offences and the severity.

[Fancy]

The rest of the article clearly pointed out why the sentence.

[WalterWhite]

The rest of the article clearly pointed out why the sentence.

- and I disagree with it.

[Fancy]

It's probably on par with similar cases.

[WalterWhite]

It's probably on par with similar cases.

The judge stated he initially felt a sentence of 12-18 months was in order and I agree that would likely be "on par" with similar cases.

The sentence was “on the edge of what’s acceptable to the court,” said Judge Mayland McKimm, noting he would have preferred a sentence of 12 to 18 months given the severity of the attacks levied by Antoine.

Tilting the scales toward acceptability, explained McKimm, was the Crown and defence finding a sentence that reflects a “meaningful application of the Gladue principle.”

So, on one hand the judge felt the sentence reflected a meaningful application of the Gladue principle - and then goes on to state that it did not result in a discount on his sentence. I disagree with this - it either did or did not - you can't have both.

[Fancy]

For comparison:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundl ... -1.3836308

Would have to read the judge's decision as the media does not often go word for word and leaves a lot out.

[WalterWhite]

For comparison:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundl ... -1.3836308

Would have to read the judge's decision as the media does not often go word for word and leaves a lot out.

He got a year - and was not the one committing the assault. He's white, no Gladue principle.

This is in today's Cap News:

http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/liqu ... y-minimum/

Stocker is aboriginal and originally from Williams Lake. His lawyer declined the opportunity to enter a Gladue report on his behalf, though he did argue for less than the mandatory minimum for robbery, pointing out that Stocker had no criminal record and wasn’t carrying the gun.

FN, no prior record, robbery, no weapon - 5 years, which is the mandatory minimum.

Antoine commits 3 separate assaults, with a weapon, and gets time served after only 10 months.

[KingCreole]

This reminds me (although not as ridiculous) of the Kamloops woman that killed her baby so-as to write a school exam (guess the baby was an inconvenience) , and then stuffed the baby in a bag and drove around with it in her trunk. 2 years probation for her. It infuriates me. Liberalism has become a disease which appeases special interests and minorities, while waging war against the rest - especially the white male. And I can say that with authority from experience. Our "justice" system is a fraud.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3877953

[fvkasm2x]

This reminds me (although not as ridiculous) of the Kamloops woman that killed her baby so-as to write a school exam (guess the baby was an inconvenience) , and then stuffed the baby in a bag and drove around with it in her trunk. 2 years probation for her. It infuriates me. Liberalism has become a disease which appeases special interests and minorities, while waging war against the rest - especially the white male. And I can say that with authority from experience. Our "justice" system is a fraud.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3877953

Jesus. I never even heard about that. How disgusting

[Fancy]

He got a year - and was not the one committing the assault. He's white, no Gladue principle.

No, he didn't get an additional year

James Rowsell has been sentenced to time served

. I didn't say the article was describing the same but using it to show time served happens in violent cases.