Doesn't remember stabbing....

[JayByrd]

I can see how intent fits with 1st degree or premeditated murder. I don't see how it fits with 2nd degree though which is the case here. Isn't 2nd degree more a crime of "passion", a brief snap of anger etc, getting drunk and stupid, in the heat of the moment? If that's the case what does it matter if he actually remembers doing it or not? They aren't trying him for 1st degree, or saying he planned it out in advance and sought out the guy with the intent to murder him in cold blood. Fact remains he killed a guy while he was drunk. He's admitted to doing it. He's trying to blame it on the booze. Quite probably he wouldn't have done it if he had been sober but nobody poured the booze down his throat - that's all on him. Whether he remembers doing it or not shouldn't matter. Unless he's trying to get the charge brought down to manslaughter if that's possible, or get a lighter sentence and get off easier. That's why I have trouble with all of this. What he's trying to do is play the game - he took another's life and but he doesn't want to have consequences. Do you think this will even stop him from ever drinking again? I highly doubt it - so here's a guy who has proven he is incapable of handling his booze, has proven he IS capable of killing someone when he is drinking, and the defence is trying to get him a lighter sentence so he can be back out on the streets possibly to do it again next time he "blacks out" because he got hammered and doesn't remember doing it - again?

I agree completely. And I simply don't believe that he has no memory of this event. It's a cop-out.

[dogspoiler]

Give him 10 years in the slammer, I'll bet he'll remember that.

[the truth]

The law stipulates that if you are intoxicated, you can't legally:

-operate a motor vehicle
-enter into a contract

Even if you are not actually behaving erratically, the law considers you unfit to engage in these activities when intoxicated, because your ability to understand your surroundings, and make sound decisions, is impaired.

Likewise, one's ability to form the intent to commit a crime like murder becomes legally questionable when a person is intoxicated...for the same reasons as above. I'm afraid we can't have it both ways.

Obviously in this case, when dealing with degrees of murder, intent is everything. By stating he can't remember the stabbing (whether he's being truthful or not), the defendant doesn't have to speak about his state of mind and his intentions at the time...which is the key to a murder conviction.

I can see how intent fits with 1st degree or premeditated murder. I don't see how it fits with 2nd degree though which is the case here. Isn't 2nd degree more a crime of "passion", a brief snap of anger etc, getting drunk and stupid, in the heat of the moment? If that's the case what does it matter if he actually remembers doing it or not? They aren't trying him for 1st degree, or saying he planned it out in advance and sought out the guy with the intent to murder him in cold blood. Fact remains he killed a guy while he was drunk. He's admitted to doing it. He's trying to blame it on the booze. Quite probably he wouldn't have done it if he had been sober but nobody poured the booze down his throat - that's all on him. Whether he remembers doing it or not shouldn't matter. Unless he's trying to get the charge brought down to manslaughter if that's possible, or get a lighter sentence and get off easier. That's why I have trouble with all of this. What he's trying to do is play the game - he took another's life and but he doesn't want to have consequences. Do you think this will even stop him from ever drinking again? I highly doubt it - so here's a guy who has proven he is incapable of handling his booze, has proven he IS capable of killing someone when he is drinking, and the defence is trying to get him a lighter sentence so he can be back out on the streets possibly to do it again next time he "blacks out" because he got hammered and doesn't remember doing it - again?

and that's a---fact--

[vinnied]

Give him 10 years in the slammer, I'll bet he'll remember that.

yeah right. These people never get a sentence they deserve for stabbing someone to death, Never.
you know I cant even count how many times an argument or fight has led to a stabbing. loose the damn knives and fight like a real man, or in a lot of cases these days, woman.

[the truth]

they would have to be real men to fight like real men,

[GordonH]

Give him 10 years in the slammer, I'll bet he'll remember that.

yeah right. These people never get a sentence they deserve for stabbing someone to death, Never.
you know I can't even count how many times an argument or fight has led to a stabbing. loose the damn knives and fight like a real man, or in a lot of cases these days, woman.

As I've said few times on this forum, Canadian justice system does not appear to give a damn about the victims.

[the truth]

and that's the truth

[WalterWhite]

[Jim Dixon]

WARNING: Contains what some MIGHT consider to be graphic details:

These posts here use a great deal of couch-judging, sans any facts. The choices for the real jury were; not guilty, guilty of 2nd degree murder, or guilty of the included charge of manslaughter. After a day and a bit of deliberation, the jury's unanimous decision was 'guilty of the included charge of manslaughter'.

Many will disagree. So be it. Many of the concerns echoed in the comments here are to do with our judicial system but lack the sustenance to back the opinions.

Granted, there was no doubt there was a violent death. As the judge pointed out, Mr. Alphonse did not have to prove anything. He was assumed to be innocent, and must be considered innocent unless proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Put 12 average citizens together and ask each one what is "reasonable" when it comes to doubt and you'll get 12 different versions of 'reasonable'.

Remember, Jurors were instructed that they could individually believe some, any, all, or none of the witnesses individual testimony
The very well certified toxicologist explained "blackouts" quite well. He (paraphrasing here) used the analogy of getting drunk at Pub A, and then going to Pub B and drinking more there. The drinker may remember drinking at Pub A and at Pub B, but not how they got from Pub A to Pub B.
My Analogy: How many times have you driven the same route day after day to and from work, and remember leaving the office, and arriving home but not the drive?

Does memory loss excuse the crime? The criminal code for murder, in the second degree, summed up, is:

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

and in the verdict,

Murder reduced to manslaughter
232 (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.

So, where was the reasonable doubt? Those attending the whole trial may remember the insertion of 'self defense' given that Alphonse may have thought the victim was headed for a knife.

Consider the very basics. The convicted, Chad Colton Aphonse (CA) was antagonistic towards the victim Waylon Percy Junior Jackson (WJ) all evening. Most everyone present had been drinking. How much CA drank is unknown. The only blood alcohol (BA) evidence known was that of Mr. Jackson. The police audio/videos, and police testimony indicated that CA had the smell of alcohol on his breath, but was otherwise in control of his faculties i.e., wasn't staggering, swaying or unable to stand or walk straight.

At some point in the evening, CA was told to leave with his girlfriend (PF) (sister to WJs partner NF). WJ and NF along with their newborn, went upstairs to retire for the night, leaving CA and PF to go home.
From upstairs, WJ and NF hear an "argument" between CA and his girlfriend PF. Waylen, having just removed his shirt heads downstairs an tells CA and PF to leave. A fight ensues between WJ and CA which moves to the kitchen/dining area. NF comes downstairs and both NF and PF yell for them to stop. WJ is "punching" CA who is now prone on the floor.
WJ starts hitting CA with a metal chair. NF yells "Stop it, you're going to kill him." at which point WJ throws the chair back which lands against the wall, a short distance from CA. WJ turns his back to CA and walks towards the kitchen where NF is standing holding their newborn. CA gets up, takes a folding knife from his right rear pocket, opens it and slashes WJ on the left back of his shoulder area (this is assumed to be the only logical chronological order of the stabbing).
WJ, feeling the injury to his back shoulder turns left raising his left arm (assumed), and CA stabs WJ under his left arm pit which is deep into the chest cavity missing vital organs, but a second stab penetrates the skin just below the other stab, pierces his ribs, upper lung then piercing the left ventricle. According to the coroner, WJ died within seconds of the ventricle being cut.

CA folded up his knife, placed it back in his pocket and left the house with just his pants, shirt but no shoes, in his sock feet.
He makes 2 calls on his blackberry. A Police perimeter officer found CA walking "nonchalantly" down Nickle Road, a few blocks from the scene. A bloody knife is recovered from CAs back pocket. CA is very cooperative, and stable on his feet and at all times, the police acted in a very respectful and professional manner.

So, again, where was the reasonable doubt to convict on 2nd degree? It was intimated during the trial, several times, that a large machete-like survival bush knife was sitting on the kitchen counter, surrounded by some empty bottles and cans. It was alluded to, that CA assumed WJ had tossed the chair and was headed for the machete - that CA feared for his life and took the steps to protect himself. Apparently, CA twice stated during interviews, that he had not seen that machete "since Christmas". If he had not seen it since Christmas, then how could he think WJ was going for the machete? Ergo, 2nd degree.

It can be assumed that the jury was not about to pretend to read CA's mind. But, there was testimony that WJ had been "showing the knife [machete] to the boys" earlier in the evening. CA claims to not have seen the machete since Christmas. Confused yet? I'll wager the jury was more confused having been loaded down with much more finite details than was available to the public. But perhaps here comes the reasonable doubt - that WJ had shown the knife and that CA may have seen it, and may have through WJ was going to get the machete and use it on CA.

Summed up, CA initiated a fight between himself and WJ. WJ spanked CA quite severely and did so in front of CA's girlfriend (PF) and had his butt handed back to him by WJ.
CA had choices. He could have stayed in the prone position and let the matter cool down. He could have got up and left with PF as he was asked to do at the get-go, he could have picked up the chair and hit WJ back with it, he could have jumped on WJs back and try to continue the fight that way, or he could have left by the sliding door which he was right beside, or he could have apologized and calmed down. But we know what his decision was.

The jury of CAs peers had to be unanimous in their verdict - beyond any reasonable doubt. It was not CAs defense lawyers job to prove innocence. He was innocent until the Crown proved otherwise. Obviously, the jury felt the Crown failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the crime met all of the requirements to convict on second degree, but did prove manslaughter.

IMHO of what I read, saw, and heard, the jury threw aside all of the chaff, set aside any personal feelings, while using the charges and instructions handed to them by the judge as their guide in order to reach a fair and just verdict.

In the end, many will not agree with the verdict. Some will cry for 2nd degree, some would demand Not Guilty. Some may even want 1st degree, but the bottom line is, it is what the Crown was able to convince the jury of.

It's our system of justice. It's a far cry better than any other country. We will never know why the jury chose what they did. But we should respect their decision, our system and our due process. We all have options regarding the process, the trial and the pending sentencing. Playing judge or complaining about the system through social media is not going to work. It only further erodes our system. If you don't like an outcome, or you feel punishment doesn't fit the crime, speak out where it matters - let your MP know how you feel; tell them your feelings, thoughts, or suggestions. It's how out justice system changes, not via social media.

just sayin...

j

[WalterWhite]

^^Let us know when the Reader’s Digest version is available.

[the truth]

i see him doing very little time..............

like i said little time https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... cle535585/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Jim Dixon]

^^Let us know when the Reader’s Digest version is available.

Mr. Posting Cop. Just what have you set as the allowable number of characters per posts here? Or should characters posing as Posting Cops be limited?

And by the way, just who are the "us" you are speaking on behalf of?
j

[WalterWhite]

*removed*

[the truth]

that's what i thought, thank you for your honesty,jim

[Jim Dixon]

*removed*